The election campaign's last days showed how ideological the incoming government, led by Tony Abbott, is going to be across a wide range of policy domains, writes Peter Chen.

Tony Abbott and the Liberal party have run a very disciplined election campaign to win government in 2013.

While there's a tendency to read history in terms of inevitability, this was not a given.

Just prior to the change of Labor leadership, and therefore the start of the formal election campaign, issues like the maternity leave's funding basis were being picked at by young turks like Alex Hawke as running counter to Liberal values: a push-back against Abbott's perceived policy populism that was nipped in the bud by Rudd's second poll honeymoon.

The majority of strategic coverage of the campaign by now has claimed that a standard model of campaigning has become entrenched as a truism: small target strategies dominate elections, particularly for Oppositions, and electoral leaders must be willing to sacrifice detailed manifestos (and the resultant legitimacy this brings) for bread-and-butter issues.

Regardless of Australia's enviable economic position, the political logic of our time says to shy away from expansive announcements and 'vision' speeches, ending the Keynesian-like relationship between strong economic growth and flights of political imagination.

This is largely true of the past five weeks, where there's been a trope running through the campaign focusing on the practical and applied: "real solutions" and common-sense economic management.

However, the final days of the campaign saw the interesting intrusion into this pathologically dull campaign by a range of issues that show how ideological the incoming government is going to be across a wide range of policy domains.

It appears that the vision-thing is there, but lurking below the surface.

The clearest indication that the battle for Australia's national identity is far from over can be seen in related announcements: the first was a plan to review the history curricular to play down political achievements of the Labor movement in Australia and indigenous voices.

The second was the identification of 'waste' in the form of specific research projects currently being undertaken in the higher-education sector.

While high-school teaching changes indicates a declaration of renewed active fighting in the ongoing history wars, the latter is more sinister: the clear objective of using post-hoc cancellations of research funding allocations within the arts and social sciences is the development of ‘chilling effect’ on academic research.

These funding applications are not simply pulled out of academic arses, but are costly and time-consuming tasks to undertake.

The threat that even successful applications will be pulled by ministerial review (as was done during the Howard government) encourages academics towards mainstream projects with less to contribute to knowledge.

While this can be attributed to the self-interested winging of an Arts faculty toff, the coalitions at-times lackadaisical application of unproven climate abatement science should raise some red-flags in the ‘hard’ science community too.

In this area the ABC and SBS need take note.

Joe Hockey, during his Q&A debate with the former treasurer Chris Bowen, also flagged 'waste hunts' in public broadcasting budgets in a non-specific way.

Social policy is also a good example where there are questions to explore about the shape of the Coalition’s policies.

While the new treasurer has attempted to explain the indexing of maternity leave payments as a workplace entitlement like sick leave or holidays, this is a strange argument as it's an entitlement funded by consolidated revenue rather than as part of the wages cost of the employer.

This makes the different treatment of maternal and professional childcare so ideological: it fits into a model that essentialises mothers as really the only capable carers, while also picking up on a common concern of the conservative right: that successful wealthy people are being out-bred because of the opportunity cost of leaving the workforce.

Interestingly, it is this very kind of basic feminist argument that was developed during the same time Abbott was heading up the student union at the University of Sydney, and talking about these types of social critique in the same language of 'waste' he's employed most recently in announcing a shift in funding from the social sciences.

In the final release of the Coalition’s proposed areas of cuts and savings, the decision to significantly reduce Australia's foreign aid expenditure is remarkable in its isolationism.

Not just an admission of disinterest from a country traditionally regarded as being able to leverage neither military power, geographic centrality, nor population size into middle power status, it also represents a willingness to burn Australian soft power and influence in our region.

In the UK, a similar critique of aid as giving money to "Bongo Bongo land" has only been produced by the far-right UK Independence party, earning a stinging rebuke from Labour and the Tories alike.

The lack of pragmatism this decision demonstrates can only be ideological in character, for all its framing as a basic budgetary measure.

Overall, the last week of the election has been interesting in how Abbott has felt confident he could bring these highly ideological and divisive issue to the fore.

Unlike the issues of asylum and carbon pricing, however, their comparatively late entry into the national conversation does not given them the imprimatur of a political mandate.

Peter John Chen is a politics lecturer in at the Department of Government at the University of Sydney. View his full profile here.

Comments (336)

struck dumb:

08 Sep 2013 10:21:49am

Given the potential make-up of the Senate, how long before a double dissolution? Assuming that what Abbott said was not pure expediency and was a core, true, truth?Its not the landslide that was predicted, and shows that if both major parties do not lift their game, voters will find their way to an alternative. Negotiation and compromise will have to be the order of the day if Abbott does not want to face an uncertain future for his party.It may not be the best for any political party, but could be the best outcome for the electorate and put an end to the viciousness that has marred our political scene for too long.

Mathew:

09 Sep 2013 10:24:37am

While it looks like the Coalition have failed to obtain a majority in the senate, it appears that the majority of independents are centre-right so Abbott should have a senate in July 2014 that he can work with.

Labor need to forget the spin about disunity being the single cause of their problems and instead focus on developing good policies. Rudd may actually have served the party better by remaining as leader for 12 months and shepherding through a process of reform.

I'm not sure who would want to be leader of the Labor Party at this point in time when the leadership is almost certain to change prior to the next election.

Melena Santorum:

din:

given that the new senate wont be run by a labor / green senate, and its expected that palmer and the others favour the removal of the carbon tax, I don't see why he needs to call another election.

he should put it up to a vote to do what Rudd said in removing the carbon tax a year earlier, and see if labor sticks to their promises, or opposes their own policy now they are in opposition.

replacing the ETS with direct action will be harder, but first he needs to work on the carbon tax.

While this wasn't the landslide that was predicted (which shows replacing Gillard with Rudd did work in saving seats), the last time labor had this low a primary vote was back in 1903 - its a stunning defeat however labor supporters want to put spin on it.

Spenda:

09 Sep 2013 12:58:23pm

Well ... for all logical intents and purposes I do not know of any person who had revised a position to claim the earlier position was the intention - why else revise it??

So ... the confirmed and finally firmed up date - given that they really do not know what mess Labor has left in store for them and so these are estimations at best - was approx. four years out from now.

All you are trying on is a petty point score with disingenuous obfuscation? No better than the politicians for which you so love to accuse them. It is clearly documented in the costings release.

Michael:

08 Sep 2013 7:19:37pm

The negativity of the Labor Party and its supporters begins. Labor should show what a fair, reasonable and positive opposition can do which realises the government has the mandate to introduce legislation. Agree to everything just like they demanded Tony do when he was opposition. To do otherwise will show they are just hypocrites.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 11:10:33pm

Too true Michael, however they do not respect the passage of democracy. Already we read of Labor voters bleating about voting for candidates with a certain ideal and therefore those candidates have the 'right' to defend those ideals in the Senate.

They forget that the right of passage of democracy is based upon the fundamental right of the majority vote to prevail. If the majority have given a mandate for a proposal then any opposing proposals which have been rejected by the majority, such as the Carbon Tax, must be abandoned by its supporters in the minority.

Comrade:

09 Sep 2013 6:40:14pm

Really Spenda? OK, then what justification could possibly be advanced for Tony blocking an ETS in 2009, when both Party's had advocated for it in the 2007 election. Want to start a discussion on mandates and the "will of the majority", start there.

Jeremy C:

09 Sep 2013 2:44:12am

It just shows the stunning achievements of the Labor government as tony Abbott new it was electoral suicide to oppose them on such things as disability. Instead he spent these past years playing the man and not the ball, the typical actions of a bully.

Reducing carbon emissions is another thing where Abbott has been able to lie, lie and then lie again. His deceit shows in how when interviewed before 2010 he gave a very cogent argument on how useful and efficient pricing carbon is but that when he thought he could get his arse in the lodge (his words to Tony Windsor not mine) he switched tune to oppose the carbon tax. He also deceitfully uses language to cover that he doesn't accept the science on anthropogenic global warming e.g. as late as last Sunday on Insiders telling Barry Cassidy that he 'believed in climate change and that man makes a contribution to it". This is a classic line used by climate change deniers to use language to fool people into believing that the person they are talking to accepts the science when its 180 degrees the opposite.

tonyM:

No Jeremy, such comments are made by people who can think and try to follow some principles of science ? like nullius in verba (trust in no one's word) but go and establish empirical evidence.

The scientific method has not been followed to establish that CAGW hypothesis is valid. There is not one model which has worked; not one!

You tell me which science there is on CAGW to accept; there is none if you wish to call it science. So don't blame Abbott for not being a sheep.

There are a lot of opinions; opinions are not science. There is no empirical evidence which satisfies those opinions. Most of the empirical evidence could barely support half the touted CO2 sensitivity.

That would preclude any natural effects making a contribution!! That's hardly likely seeing that we have been coming out of the little ice age which had nothing to do with CO2.

Abbott is tackling it in a way to avoid damage to jobs. But he seems committed to reducing CO2 in line with our commitments.

As for the European market I doubt whether there is an economist alive who believes it is not a contrived market to suit Europe.

Mycal:

09 Sep 2013 5:59:51pm

Nothing is certain tonyM , outside of religion there is no absolute truth and your statement "There is not one model which has worked; not one" applies to all science. The scientific method does establish a hypothesis as valid but only within a narrow band of probability and error.

Your statement regarding climate science is patently untrue, there is emprical evidence that validates many of the hypothesises put forward by climate scientists. There are also things about climate science which are inexplicable given the current state of the art. But the same can be said for quantum physics.

Abbotts rejection of climate science is based on his inate conservatism and religious beliefs, it has no scientific validity just as his politically inspired solution to it has no economic substance either.

TrevorN:

09 Sep 2013 4:35:54am

Hey Michael, you can't have it both ways you know. Your lot taught us the politics of negativity so don't blame any Labor supporter who uses the same methods to get rid of crazy Tony Abbott and his bunch of proven incompetents.

Tony said he's stop the boats "from day one." Well a boat arrived yesterday with 80 regugees on board. Why didn't he stop it? His first broken promise and still only day one.

We all know it's only a matter of time before he turns on the working class who he conned into giving him government. He owes too much to the Industrialists and Miners and will have to pay off Rupert somehow.

Any government born through deceit, lies and bastardry cannot hope to claim legitimacy and probably won't go the distance.

I'm predicting a Labor victory in an early election. This will happen after the Bernardi even madder right wing religous fanatical faction demands their due. Just watch this space.

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

Manny:

Comrade:

09 Sep 2013 6:38:11pm

Michael, perhaps Labor should reject everything, just like Tony (the most successful opposition leader ever!?) did. For the Coalition to demand anything else would "show they are just hypocrites". We wouldn't want that, would we?

Nick:

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 12:50:00am

Rather ironically, din, what saved Labor from annihilation wasn't Rudd, it was the division in the LNP. If Palmer hadn't broken away from the LNP then he wouldn't have set up PUP and Labor wouldn't have received preferences from PUP voters. The result would have been the same regardless of who was leading Labor. With Palmer likely to be the member for Fairfax and PUP not only saving Labor but also getting a couple of Senate seats that would otherwise have gone to the LNP I bet the LNP are now regretting that they didn't just let Palmer run as an LNP candidate when he demanded it.

Miowarra:

Mr Abbott has shown no signs during his career that he does either negotiation or compromise and it's doubtful that a party under his discipline will do either.

The Liberal party, during the past six years, has introduced a full measure of viciousness to the political dialogue and has demonstrated that the big lie and personal vilification are successful campaign tactics.

Why would you expect that other parties will not take those lessons on board and use them, similarly. If your suggestion is "because we're better than that", then I need to point out to you that politics doesn't work that way.

"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind"

For example, we haven't heard the last of Ashbygate and Mal Brough's involvement in that slimy episode. The court is yet to deliver its findings.

While we await the establishment of the "commission of audit" and its confected findings of "waste" in every area that does not meet Liberal party ideology, we can recognise one thing, that the Liberal party has re-introduced hatred and division into the electorate.

That's going to take about a decade at best to subside, if it ever does. After all, the rancour over The Dismissal is still around.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 12:55:51pm

Sure your post hasn't introduced hate and division? Funds should be spent carefully. Of course some people will disagree. They are mainly the ones receiving those funds.

Its no surprise to me that Canberra has both its seats safe in ALP hands. The public service is reliant on funds from everywhere else to maintain the highest average wage in the nation. They have developed a left wing ideology to help this and it keeps them consistent in demanding more funds from others while others want less of the public service.

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 2:22:35pm

It's pretty clear looking back over the last 3 years in particular that Abbott has deliberately cultivated a very negative and hateful manner in which to deal with differences of opinion between the major parties. I am curious to see how long it takes for Abbott to crumble as he has pushed forward with policies members of his own side strongly object to, for example the PPL. I doubt whether he has the skills of negotiation and positive collaboration to make it work.

freeway:

08 Sep 2013 2:47:58pm

Adelaide Rose ,you clearly don't follow politics too closely,otherwise you would know that the ALP has chucked everything at Abbott led by Gillard and her thugs in the last few years.Abbott is a gentleman,a quality unknown in Labor circles.

patience radlett:

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 5:20:53pm

To say Abbott is a gentleman is to ignore his treatment of many who disagree with him. He is a main instigator in the decline in political standards over the years he has been in parliament and, over the last few years he has taken the level of debate to new lows. He should be ashamed of much of his conduct. This is not to say that members of the ALP have behaved much better. Political discourse in this country has been nothing less than embarrassing.

Treetop:

08 Sep 2013 7:40:29pm

Mr Abbott was lucky to be at the right place and at the right time in becoming prime minister The Labor party lost the election and Mr Abbott didn't win it on his merits and policies alone . Is Mr Abbott is the best Australia can offer for the Prime Ministership ?Nothing really stands out about him as a politician and the best two policies he could offer was to pay rich Australians a $75,000 maternity leave while he said the country was in an economic crisis and to offer to buy Indonesian boat wrecks so selling boat wrecks in Indonesia becomes a business that Australians pay for .If Abbott and his policies were properly assessed by the main media in this country in the same way Labor has been treated by the media , he would never have been prime minister .Tony Abbott might become a prime minister that can be similarly compared to Bill Macmahon , a prime minister who became very unpopular and who lacked a lot of political skills or Tony Abbott might surprise anyone and come forward with a positive agenda that has remained hidden because the first stage was to get the Prime Ministership before revealing all his political ambitions because the far right of his party wouldn't agree with him .

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

Mycal:

09 Sep 2013 6:13:19pm

Obviously you are a Liberal supporter and, true to type Waterloo Sunset. 2014 you lack any powers of perception, discrimination or understanding of humour and wit. Keating was both perceptive, witty and had an intellect. Just a pity Labor doesn't have the likes of him in parliament to today because your lot wouldn't last five minutes!

deceptionplanet:

08 Sep 2013 6:16:52pm

Perhaps you don't see past your own garden fence to see where your corporate dictatorship of this planet is leading us, maybe you should follow politics more closely in particular those behind the parties who are guided by the financial elite.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 3:06:22pm

This is when the ALP and Greens where using names such as "sexist", "bigot" and "mad monk". During a time his minsters where called to apologise for things written on menus they never saw and during a time where Abbott was expected to see and approve of every sign he was in front of. A feat that I do not believe any minister has achieved.

Mr Abbott has had his leadership skills recognised by the party, has got a history of his staff leaving on good terms and has cabinet experience.

Something has gone right with his communication on so many occasions. Yet still the personal attacks prevail. Play the policies, not the man.

TrevorN:

09 Sep 2013 9:30:25am

..."Yet still the personal attacks prevail. Play the policies, not the man."

Abbott told us repeatedly throughout this campaign that he would not lead a coalition government. It is now clear that for Abbott to govern effectively he will need to form a coalition with the independents and greens to operate effectively. Wil he now honour his promise and resign as PM?

This was his "policy" so I'm not playing the man, I'm asking him to honor his policy promise.

Iswide:

09 Sep 2013 1:45:33pm

OntheRun: "... and has cabinet experience."

Not necessariuly a good point for him.

He has made a point that Howard government decisions were Cabinet decisions so as a member of the Cabinet that decided that Australia would participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq, he is complicit in the most serious crime under international law.

Polly Wolly Doodle:

08 Sep 2013 3:39:50pm

Adelaide Rose,

I agree with your view looking over the past three years of spite from the frustrated Abbott who failed to gain the right to govern in a hung parliament in 2010. He was unable to reflect on his own failure in that venture, hence we had the impulse to fight the only way he knew, with poorly constructed and opaque policies and low grade level of political debate. The Liberal Party was unable to address his failure, because if they had not switched leaders before the 2010 election, Malcolm Turnbull would have been Prime Minister.

With a talent for bitterness, Tony Abbott took us to the lowest level ever from the start, by posing with the placards that read 'ditch the witch' and 'Bob Brown's Bitch',in the company of Sophie Mirabella and Bronwyn Bishop and others. It was a low moment he had sunk to in order to secure a cheap political point. He never looked back as he gave permission for all the boofheads in Australia to be sexist, and many went along with it. Perhaps those boofheads had been repressed misogynists for too long, who knows? Kicking Julia Gillard became the national sport, helped along by MSM. It has been a shameful time for Australian politics.

Another low point was when Abbott repeated, at a time when Julia Gillard was grieving for her father, the Alan Jones vitriol, "Died of Shame" comment which engendered the famous Gillard rebuke. What followed was the Mel Brough inspired misogyny 'menu'. We had never sunk to such grubby levels, and Abbott continued to endorse Brough who also behaved badly in the Ashbygate affair, using the courts to bring down a former colleague. The worst Peter Slipper had done was to use some cab vouchers to tour wineries at tax payers expense. Perhaps he paid it back, just as Tony Abbott did previously when using tax payers money incorrectly.

The Peter Slipper event also highlighted a massive failure of Tony Abbott to keep Slipper within the fold until The Labor Party cleverly made Slipper the speaker, infuriating Abbott. More vitriol was to follow.

This man Abbott does not deserve to be Prime Minister, but it would appear that Australia is getting the Prime Minister it deserves.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 5:13:14pm

You criticise Tony Abbott for standing before a few signs he did not write. I trust you will keep that standard for all politicians. Have the Greens ever been before a sign that called a PM a war criminal? I hope that is worthy of condemnation as well

Mel Brough, did not see the menu in question. There is no evidence he did. I think it is a low point that he was called to resign over something he never saw.

Peter Slipper is a person who typed digusting things about female genitalia and was in question (and still is) over misspending funds. The speaker needs to be better than that.

Its interesting you don't mention the low points of Tony Abbott being branded a "sexist" despite his many positive relations with females, a "bigot" despite the one sided views of others and a "racist" when this is a person that gives up his holidays to help the Indigenous. There is also the "mad monk" which is a bigoted attack on Christianity and insulting references made about Abbott when he is in fun run or triathlon events which often raise funds for charity.

Now we have a PM who is being attacked already. And you think it was a national sport to attack Gillard.

Australians really need to look at themselves. There is so much hypocrisy.

Pedro:

09 Sep 2013 3:37:17pm

Having watched parliament when I could over the past three years I must say your post is spot on Polly.Lets hope for Australia's sake some real LNP talent has been elected this time as there would only be a handful of the previous opposition who offered even a hint of competence or talent amongst the whole 75 of them.I would also like to add that Abbott and Co were most un Australian during their time in opposition e.g constantly talking down the economy, failing to support the Malaysian Solution for actually " stopping the boats", and being so heavily influenced by those most un Australian group of all, - the shock jocks of radio and TV.Through all this Julia Gillard as PM was measured, extremely competent, had vision, handled the moronic and pitifully biased MSM, and put through important legislation including the critical NBN. Abbotts acceptance speech should have begun with these words " Firstly I would like to thank Mr Rupert Murdoch and his servile employees for their wonderful help over the past three years, If not for this unprecedented help I am sure I would have sunk out of sight as I no doubt deserved to "

Sly Place:

08 Sep 2013 5:20:53pm

You complain about someone introducing hate and division before going on to slag off an entire city. The public service is not reliant on funds from everywhere else - they are reliant on the wages that they earn doing jobs that ensure the programmes of government of any stripe are implemented.

Its no surprise to me that the Coalition has safe seats in some of the wealthiest areas of the country. The people in them are reliant on all sorts of subsidies, tax loopholes, family trusts and funds from more ordinary tax payers to maintain extravagant lifestyles. They have developed a right wing ideology to maintain this and it keeps them consistent in demanding more such breaks from others while others would be grateful for more public services - schools, hospitals, roads etc. - that come under threat whenever the LNP are in power and redistributing wealth away from some of those who need it most.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 10:16:17pm

The ALP has some rich seats too. The biggest difference between party seat locations is that the rural areas vote for the coalition. Its the cities that decide the policies to implement there yet the ones living in agricultural or mining communities that have huge fluctuations in income and quite often depend on tourism don't like the ALP method of helping these industries.

deceptionplanet:

08 Sep 2013 6:13:00pm

The left wing ideology is (inclusive) the right wing ideology is individualistic and born of the robber barons from the middle ages. The world will never prosper under right wing extremism, in fact as you can see in society today it's a race to the bottom.

custard:

Adelaide Rose it would seem is the new kid on the block venting about the ALP loss. She is in denial as is the rest of the ALP, perhaps with the exception of former minister Combet.

He correctly points out the in-fighting that was a hallmark of both administrations, Rudd and Gillard and Rudd.

Adelaide as with the rest of the Labor party need to understand that unless they get of Kevin (Julia already did the right thing) they will never move on.................NEVER.

Only when the ALP realise or acknowledge that Rudd is the sole or at the base reason for EVERYTHING that has gone wrong for them, only then, will the ALP re-build. Heres hoping they don't take my advice.

TrevorN:

09 Sep 2013 4:51:55am

Kevin has graciously and generously stood down as the Labor leader and will do everything in his power to support the new leader. He has also vowed to stay on as a humble backbencher to represent his electorate.

John:

James:

09 Sep 2013 6:35:50pm

It's not all up to Kevin. Don't forget that the Labor leadership conflict since 2010 happened because of deep rooted conflicts within the caucus, driven by the undemocratic interests of their backers off-stage, and not only due to the behaviour of the two front line protagonists. We will have to wait to see whether this deep seated malaise continues within the post 2013 election. caucus

John:

So: Are you suggesting that the world will prosper under left wing ideology?

Like that operating in North Korea right now? Or that used to operate in Russia until it realised the error and moved towards capitalism?

What about Europe? The only five remaining left-led governments among the EU?s 27 member states are Spain, Greece, Austria, Slovenia and Cyprus. Are you asking us to accept the economic situation that applies in those countries?

Unless you are happy that the Government can raid your bank account to finance its debts, you shouldn't.

Pedro:

09 Sep 2013 3:50:04pm

I note that the bastion of free enterprise the USA has over 2 million in jails, another 21 million who don't even have basic food security including over 2 million who often go hungry. Then there's health care, $5.00 min wage and so on.As for North Korea they were actually more prosperous than South Korea until the early 1980s when their export markets collapsed thanks to the manipulation and interference of the USA.I also would have thought that as Western Governments had to act as socialists and bail out the Western corporate world in 2008 this total failure of capitalism would still be remembered.

TrevorN:

09 Sep 2013 4:42:06am

"Its no surprise to me that Canberra has both its seats safe in ALP hands."

Well, waddya expect! The neocons, the wannabe neocons and their hangers on voted in their self interests too, didn't they. Why is it OK for the rich to protect their political interests and workers not to protect theirs? Double standards are in play here. I can only deduct from your comment that you think there should be one rule for the elite and one for the workers. Grow up. If you think that everyone is going to bow down to Tory born to rule bastardry then you don't know Australians.

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:09:36pm

"A good government is one that governs for all Australians, including those who haven't voted for it. A good government is one with a duty to help everyone to maximise his or her potential - Indigenous people, people with disabilities, and our forgotten families, as well as those who Menzies described as lifters, not leaners. We will not leave anyone behind." Tony Abbott

Miowarra - it is about time that you opened your ears and stopped posting bigoted, unfounded and defamatory comments on the drum. You are a disgrace to free speech.

John:

09 Sep 2013 11:17:21am

All of those comments are misleading, distorted or down right dishonest, Paul101. Of course an opposition should oppose. Are you suggesting that everybody, for all time, should simply capitulate to the existing situation and not offer an alternative?

1) The surplus promise was made on the basis of the financial situation set out by the Government. As that promise changed from a surplus, to an $18 billion deficit, to a $30 billion deficit and then to a $33 billion deficit within a few short weeks, the "first year" comment clearly cannot apply;2) Abbott did not say that climate change is crap. What he said was that SOME of the science allegedly supporting SOME of the AGW claims was crap;3) What he said was that IF you wished to impose a charge on carbon, why not use the simplest form of levy - a tax. He never said that he supported a tax, intended to implement a tax or that a tax was desirable.

Nicholas Scrooge:

08 Sep 2013 9:25:46pm

Aah well done Ghost o' CP,

you are entitled to remind us that it was Abbott in his budget reply of 2011 who drew upon the 1942 Menzies reference of the middle class, the non-elite, as "The Forgotten People".Let us keep a lid on the vitriol (of others) and see where the new PM takes us and, after a reasonable time, judge his choices for a better legacy here at home and for those who live next door; I can wait to make my judgement.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 1:02:45pm

" ... ending the Keynesian-like relationship between strong economic growth and flights of political imagination." Yes, Keynesian economics has proved itself to be nothing more than a flight of the political imagination. There is no Government which has adopted the Keynesian theory and which has not ended up either bankrupt, or on the path to it - madly printing money or in need of huge fiscal bail-outs. The only reason Australia is in good shape, is because the Howard Government flatly rejected Keynesianism - fortunately for Australia.

Rudd and Gillard, along with most Laborites, do not understand it, yet persist in adopting such and consequently run high deficits, risking Australia?s economy. If it were not for the conservative fiscal management by Liberal Governments, which always pull back Labor?s spending sprees, Australia would be in the same boat as Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain, et al.

" ... there's been a trope running through the campaign focusing on the practical and applied: "real solutions" and common-sense economic management.

Labor?s campaign was disingenuous, projecting no ring of truth, nor plausible or credible belief in its claim it was economically responsible - and that the Coalition was not!

You can?t pretend to be running a campaign on ?responsible ?common-sense? economic management ?, while announcing big spending ticket items when running a massive deficit, without balancing these with cuts and prudent fiscal management.

Over and over the cause of Labor?s ultimate downfall is its historically illogical mantra : A fear of cuts, (out of a fear of losing votes), with no fear of bankruptcy. Intelligent people understand the perfidy of this.

Julie Bishop is right. Parenting - specifically mothering - is the most important job in the world. Grounded parenting produces grounded children and requires ALL of Mum, not half of her. Giving it half guarantees a poor result. Why should the taxpayer pay for the care of children whose Mum's can afford to stay at home, who don't NEED to work - just to satisfy those Mum's personal agendas?

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:20:19pm

Spenda - I think you will find that "madly printing money" is actually monetarist policy. Either way the Howard Government significantly expanded fiscal spending during its period in office. Programs such as "Roads to Recovery" is one example of Keynesian policy that was pursued by the Howard Government. There is also little evidence that running consistently high deficits is a bad thing so long as the books are balanced over the long term - the "new deal" implemented by Roosevelt arguably restored the US economy. Sadly, the political agenda has been determined in recent years by economic simpletons - QWayne Swan being a good example. It will be interesting to see whether Joe Hockey has the ability to step up to the plate as Treasurer - my hope is that sooner rather than later Malcolm Turnbull or Mathias Corman take over as I believe that both would potentially make better Treasurers.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 5:18:07pm

It is clouding the argument to imply that I am saying that 'monetarist policy' - attributed to Friedman - is the cause of the 21st Century economic failures in Europe and the US, rather than the application of the Keynesian theory. That is not what I am saying.

Certainly, Friedman's monetary theory influenced the Federal Reserve's response to the global financial crisis of 2007?08, BUT it ignored Friedman's 'brake' when doing so. He in fact opposed the very existence of a central bank, but given that it DID exist, conceded that a SMALL expansion of the money supply was not necessarily unwise policy if the need arose. You could hardly call QE I, II AND III small expansions.

We know that the Keynes' monetarist theory focused on stabilising the value of currency, with consequential panics around insufficient money supply ending in a collapse. I am not referring to that, but rather to Keynes' theory of government stimulus, which has been adopted by these failed economies, including the US. It is the consequences of the adoption of the Keynes-style stimuli which has led the US to a situation of the need for quantitative easing and, likewise, led to the bail-outs across Europe. A classic example of failed Keynesian theory is the bankruptcy of the Japanese economy in the late 90's that it too had to adopt quantitative easing.

The failed economies of Europe in this century all adopted the Keynesian 'stimulus' theory, which espouses some 'miracle' flow down, but which has never worked and nor ever been proven to work. Most western economies abandoned Keynesian economic theory in the late 60's for good reason. Why it is being re-visited in the 21st Century confounds me. Obviously, it is favoured by the banking sector because it swells banking coffers via massive interest returns on Government debt. The US think tanks were, albeit stupidly, persuaded by bankers to adopt the Keynesian model following the GFC - likewise various high spending, high taxing, high deficit European nations - austerity being a 'dirty' word!

According to Friedman, Government spending and increases in the money supply must be conservative with minimal government intervention and always be measured by growth in productivity and demand, to avoid inflationary repercussions. That is NOT what we are seeing in the US today.

Whitey:

09 Sep 2013 5:28:30am

The most bizarre example of Keynesian spending was the Ruddy money. Keynes believed in the multiplier effect, but if it ever really worked, it was in the closed economies of the past. His example of money being spent at the retailer, and the chain of wealth returning right back throughout the manufacturer to the producer, doesn't relate to someone buying a new iPad online, or even through Harvey Norman, where there is no or negligable multiplier effect, but here in the 21 century we were still using Keynes 101.

deceptionplanet:

08 Sep 2013 6:27:07pm

Howard was the biggest taxing government in Australian history, he also sold off most of the countries assets to get a surplus. His actions on the waterfront with Reith were criminal and despite a surplus what infrastructure did he put in place.

John:

Check the comparative tax take, at adjusted figures, for the Howard years as compared to the Keating years.

Howard did not "sell off most of the countries (sic) assets".

Keating sold the Commonwealth Bank, as former ALP Senator Robert Ray said, "in a panic-stricken lunge for the funds". He sold QANTAS for about one-third of its value, and was about to sell Telstra to BHP at a price of about $2 per share when he lost office. Fahey and Costello sold it for a price of up to $7.70 per share, and earned the country billions that Keating would have wasted.

Even that most rigid of left wingers, Bob Ellis wrote, some three years or so ago: "It is hard to see how Paul Keating?s ... privatisation of Qantas, the winding down of tariffs and the sale of the Commonwealth Bank ? look any good any more".

As to actions against the Maritime Union, when you are facing blackmail and extortion, strong remedies are called for. Would you dare to suggest that waterfront operations are now not infinitely more efficient and effective than they were before the Union's activities were curtailed?

Serenity_Gate:

08 Sep 2013 2:26:21pm

Yes, Spenda, Let's go back to the 1950s when women were subjected to violence and infidelity by their male masters.Well, why aren't you attacking the coalition's paid parental leave for the wealthy, or doesn't that matter, because they have better genes? Eugenics in action.

Just remember, it was Howard's middle-class welfare spending that changed their perceptions about what is necessary to live: big houses, expensive suburbs, sending their children to different suburbs' public schools because they thought the local schools "weren't quite good enough".

OntheRun:

First you say Tony Abbott wants subservient women when he has a wife that once (and may still) out-earn him, highly educated daughters and a history of having a female chief of staff.

Typical of the grubby attacks seen in politics. The PPL is one of the reasons I didn't vote for Abbott. Too much will go to women who reproduce. More than the average wage during a 6 month period on many occasions. I reckon that is ridiculous.

I didn't mention better genes at all, but nice try to introduce separation. Much like your first paragraph. Ever thought it would be better for people to work together? Division is becoming a hallmark policy of the left attacks. Peter Chen's article is an excellent example.

John Howard went through a time of economic growth and peoples expectations grew due to that. Large houses did not start with Howard and they will not end with him. This is because of individual choice. Do you wish to stop individual choice as well?

The ALP and Greens where rejected because they lied, held power in a unstable government, wasted money and introduced policies that many did not want. Of course you may know better than the majority, but I doubt it.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 3:29:30pm

If you read my other posts, you will see quite clearly that I DO disagree with the Liberal's paid parental scheme policy - so much so that I even advance the opinion that most conservative voters do not support it; that it goes against the traditional conservative thinking.

Going back to the 1950's? Violence, infidelity by male masters ??? From where within my remarks have I espoused any of that? Anyway, statistically, there is much more male-dominated violence on the streets and domestically now than in the 50's, so maybe the lack of mothers at home has something to do with that??? The experts believe so - i.e. latch-key kids, etc.

In any event, your argument is illogical. You are proposing a throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. Why cannot it be that we can throw away the bad practices of a previous era while keeping the best ones? No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater at all ... it is called learning from experience.

Wary:

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 3:31:43pm

No not Howard's middle-class welfare spending that changed Western society values across the world - Australia is hardly unique so why pin it on Howard - but rather socialism which has wrought these changes. Spreading the wealth in other words, a mantra of the ALP.

graazt:

09 Sep 2013 4:46:38pm

Introducing the market and choice into the delivery of basic government functions such as healthcare and education ain't socialism mate but rather an outcome of neoliberalism. Something both parties have supported for 30 years.

mick:

08 Sep 2013 6:44:10pm

DD can be very exciting and will once again test the policies and leaders. The 4 week election campaign for the DD will allow us to have another look. Perhaps the sooner the better as the idea of using Rudd as the proxy leader will once again provide the people a clear choice and also allow the alp to have another look at kevin for the future. A double dissolution is just what we need for clarity.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia:

08 Sep 2013 10:36:36am

Abbott has promised that his Govt will get rid of the carbon tax. The ALP and Greens need to respect the Australian voters and not block Abbot Govt and stop ramping down our throats their ideological hypes on global warming.

K Rudd had hijacked the needed battles against global warming to gain votes when he declared that is the greatest MORAL challenge of our time.

Australia total CO2 emission is less than 1.5% of global total. Australia is a very very expensive country. Thus the logical thing to do, stripped of hype on morality, is to do NOTHING within Australia but focus on what we can do to help the naughty nations China and India to reduce their CO2 emission. Each year the increase in CO emission in China and India is greater than the total emission of Australia. China and India on average build four new power stations per week.

The ETS can be even more dangerous than the carbon tax. For it to be effective not all developed countries should chase to buy carbon credits and there are enough supplies of audited (not scam) carbon credits. Unfortunately audited carbon credits takes a long time to create and such delays can cause severe distortions and volatility in carbon credits. In brief Australia must avoid the ETS model to manage CO2 emission.

Many people in Australia have been downed by hype and emotions in this debate on global warming.

To get clear thinking let us move away from global warming and apply the same thinking to the No 1 global problem, the increasing global population. Every TWO months the increase in world population is about 24,000,000. The only proven method is the ONE CHILD policy. So using the logic and hype of K Rudd on morality rather than concrete global actions Australia should have a one child policy for fear that other nations will accuse us of being hypocrites. 99.99% of Australians including lefties Greens (SHY) will scream STUPID STUPID and rightly so. But hey that is exactly the logic behind the carbon tax and the new monster ETS being pushed down the throats of Australians by ALP and Greens.

The way forward is to spend a few billion dollars on Joint R&D in nuclear energy with the naughty nations China and India. Other actions can be to provide solar units to the natives of the Himalayan Mountains at a fraction of the costs in Australia. This is urgently needed in the third Pole after Arctic and Antarctica with rapid loss in glaciers.

The Australian dollar can buy tens of thousands of more solar panels in India and China for India and China (the worlds highest CO2 emitters), than it can buy solar panels in Australia for Australia.

Therefore, he is absolutely right to argue that a far greater impact could be made by Australia in reducing global warming by using the Australian dollar off-shore where it can go many times further and where it counts. Much more logical than playing around with expensive and ineffectual programs, such as carbon taxation and ETS schemes, which achieve nothing in the over-all CO2 war, given Australia's extremely small emission rate, when measured on a global scale in the entire global scheme of things.

Also, it is pretty hard to deny the absolute logic of an argument which acknowledges that global warming is homo-sapien induced as a result of its over-population - using up natural resources faster than these can naturally replenish. Why is it so difficult, then, for the ALP and the Greens to address themselves sincerely and honestly to the crucible of population control - which Mr. Goh is also advocating?? At the end of the day, one cannot deny that that, together with alternative energy, must be a major part of the solution, all of which Mr. Goh is suggesting.

It is illogical that so many of you are attacking him, therefore. It appears that your ideologies are at war with their own outcomes.

Melena Santorum:

09 Sep 2013 3:17:01pm

I believe the Greens have shown an awareness that over population is a problem.

From Milne's campaign launch:

'This election, like never before, is about who you can trust to care for people regardless of their circumstances - rich or poor, country or city - and to care for the environment in the face of rising temperatures, growing global population and increasing habitat loss.'

John:

08 Sep 2013 7:43:23pm

You could have a think about this, AnneT:

?The public needs to know that the policy-makers? summary, presented as the united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it.? &#8232;&#8232;Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge who acted as a referee on the IPCC report.

Or this:

?I was astounded at the alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific material is overwhelming.? David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited reviewer of the report and a Lead Author.

If you do, perhaps you'd like to read the work of Steve McKitrick, who has shown how deletions and re-writing takes place after the final scientific report is submitted. Or that of Anthony Watts, who has presented evidence of Michael Mann deleting evidence that contradicts his research - and the evidence of one of his colleagues, to boot. Or would you care to look at the actions of Ben Santer who, after submission of a final report, deleted all the papers that challenged AGW and replaced them with his own unpublished and non peer-reviewed articles?

Clarke:

09 Sep 2013 5:31:08pm

More cut-and-paste off-topic distortions from John.

On Wadhams:

Mr Wasdell's claims that political and economic interests had influenced the scientific material presented in the UN report was flatly rejected by the Australian scientists involved in writing it. The scientists who wrote and reviewed the report accepted comment from government representatives, themselves scientists, but retained an "absolute right of veto" over the final report, said Neville Nicholls, a professorial fellow at Monash University.

"I would say it is gold-standard science - what we write down is what we can defend to the death," he said. "There is a big jump from being conservative science to saying that government agents are writing it. That is just baloney."

Associate Professor Nathan Bindoff at the University of Tasmania agreed. Any references to things such as the "possible acceleration of climate change" that were removed from the final report were removed for scientific reasons, he said. "The scientific view was that the observational record did not support the word acceleration. No government asked us to remove [it]. The contributions from the governments were very helpful. We were all very, very pleased with the changes that governments made."

On Wasdell:

Wasdell is not a climate scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was not in Paris, and is grossly ignorant of both the science and the IPCC process. His "New Scientist" (2007) account of what went on is factually incorrect in many important respects.

On McKitrick and Watts:

Neither are climate scientists. Both have been discredited as frothing-at-the-mouth denialists.

DAMO:

08 Sep 2013 12:00:11pm

SEG i was also interested in his ideological take on DEMOCRACY and how only the Coalition votes somehow negate all others.Given his pseudonym claims he lives in Asia might i suggest North Korea as point of origin given his views on democracy.As yet, i still have not heard the word " mandate " , but i am sure the Coalition supporters believe a tad over half the vote ,around 54 % is a mandate.According to them 46 % of the vote is null and void

A happy little debunker:

08 Sep 2013 12:58:05pm

DAMO,On Saturday 21/08/2010, 149 of 150 seats were won by representatives that did not support or advocate for a Carbon Tax.On Saturday 08/09/2013, 149 of 150 seat were won by representatives that either wanted to 'terminate' or repeal the Carbon Tax.

DAMO:

08 Sep 2013 1:53:54pm

Respect is earnt not given because you breathe oxygen where i come from AHLD.The Labor policy is a carbon trading scheme and given they are predicted to win 55-56 seats in the House of Reps ,roughly a third of the vote, i think they have a right to stand by their own policy of what they took to the election.Don't get me wrong , i think regardless of your politics Labor had to go and it gave me a lot of joy to see Rudd and his clowns get kicked out , BUT , the only way the Liberals or anyone can assume a mandate is to win control of both the upper house and lower house which would DEMOCRATICALLY allow them to get their legislation through with no negotiation.Let me know when the Libs have control of both houses again in the senate won't you.Democracy is such a hard concept for some isn't it

A happy little debunker:

08 Sep 2013 2:55:03pm

DAMO,When Julia announced her facts had changed and she would abandon her promise to the Australian people, we saw how 'Labor' democracy worked.When Kevin announced his facts had changed and abandoned his promise to the Labor party to defend Julia, we saw how 'Labor' democracy worked.

Most recently, when Kevin announced that Labor would end its carbon tax - it comes as no suprise that 'Labor' democracy will have its facts changed.

DAMO:

08 Sep 2013 3:34:19pm

And AHDL, the fact remains Rudd the Dudd and his lackeys went to the election saying the tax would become an ETS ,this was a major policy platform, the first if i recall correctly.The democracy i am talking about as you well know is the system of which the parties belong not the parties themselves.Now as such, the Labor voters ( which i was not ), have a right to expect that to be their stand even in opposition.A MANDATE is when an elected party has control of both houses, nothing more and nothing less.So until Abbott has that then he has NO mandate for any policy unless we also voted to swap the Westminster system for a dictatorship.

DAMO:

ThatFlemingGent:

Ah the true Liberal Right thought processes come to the fore: "We won, so you proles shut up, do what your told and accept the decrees PM Abbott makes"

This is disrespect for the institute of modern civilised democracy typical of the zealous, authoritarian fascist.

Given that your ilk are impervious to reason, perhaps more Skinnerian behavioural management techniques are needed to remind you that we do not live in a single-party dictatorship and the people who did not vote for the current crop of shysters are not to be disenfranchised.

Oh, and what happened to PM Abbott's declaration that the right way to deal with carbon emissions was to implement a "simple tax" or are you going to excuse the Libs for the very thing you abuse the intelligent people of Australia for?

A happy little debunker:

Amazing that the progressives just don't understand that a person, a group, a political party should meet (where possible) the commitments and objectives that that they state.

Reason, you want reason? What reason is there for Labor not to honor its pre-election commitment to end the Carbon Tax?-The tax they agreed, last Sunday, they lacked the social and democratic authority to implement.

They just lost an election for failing to honor their achievable commitments from 2010 on, and here you go saying they still shouldn't bother.

Who is disrespecting civilised democracy? Who is the zealous authoritarian?

Misquoting Abbott won't help your position either, he prefaced his comments by acknowledging 'if you', not 'he does'.

ThatFlemingGent:

08 Sep 2013 8:59:57pm

"Reason, you want reason? What reason is there for Labor not to honor its pre-election commitment to end the Carbon Tax?-The tax they agreed, last Sunday, they lacked the social and democratic authority to implement..."

They promised to bring the date of transition forward a year on Rudd's return to the Prime Ministership. The effort to spin this into a lie that the carbon tax is going to be "scrapped" would make Goebbels blush with embarrassment at it's sheer arrogance.

"Who is disrespecting civilised democracy? Who is the zealous authoritarian?"

The number of smug Liberals assuming "mandates" and demanding that opposition to the incoming Government policy agenda cease because of this "mandate". One commenter went so far as to compare government to business, where if the majority "win" the rest of the board simply withdraws and keeps their traps shut.

Such people have zero concept of modern statehood.

This is not how democracy works and shows the far Right's disgracefully anti democratic leanings - the born-to-rule attitude in spades.

"Misquoting Abbott won't help your position either, he prefaced his comments by acknowledging 'if you', not 'he does'."

TA: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?"

He still supported the idea of a direct carbon tax (not a pricing scheme/ETS - it's the very thing he rails against!) as a means of raising the price of carbon. No amount of semantic gymnastics can cover that fact.

Both of you are pathological liars. Don't think we won't hold you to account and point out your lies, misdirections and propaganda.

Rampant snail:

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 12:59:18am

Go back and watch the video of that ABC interview again, ThatFlemingGent. Abbott said that IF you were going to put a price on carbon dioxide that a simple tax would be the least worst way of going about it. He certainly wasn't advocating for a price to be on carbon. He was simply saying that if you were going to do it then the proposal Rudd put forward was, in his opinion, the worst way of doing it.

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:32:29pm

DAMO - I am interested in your post "Democracy is such a hard concept for some isn't it". Could you please explain why Sarah Hanson-Young preferenced the Climate Change Skeptics Party ahead of Nick Xeonapon in yesterdays Senate election? The Green's are self-serving hypocrites at their core.

ThatFlemingGent:

08 Sep 2013 4:17:56pm

Given that 50+% of the electorate did not vote for cynical climate change denialist frauds you do not have a "mandate" and this isn't a unicameral dictatorship.

Someone needs to tell you and your smug far-Right fascist mates that you do not have absolute power, as we still live in a social democracy and those that wish to "rule by decree" will suffer the consequences of their actions.

A happy little debunker:

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 1:10:25am

Count again, ThatFlemingGent. Both the coalition and the Palmer United Party went into the election with the total elimination of the carbon tax as their policy. Nationally the coalition primary vote was 45.4% and the Palmer United primary vote was 5.6% giving a combined total of 51%.

damon:

I have always objected to the idea that just because a political party wins government, it has some sort of a 'mandate' to introduce every one of its policies, no matter how hare-brained.

Prior to an election, every political party should nominate two or three issues that they believe are crucial to their platform. If a party is successful, these issues should automatically be passed by the opposition. Other matters should be up for debate on their merits.

Seano:

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 2:27:26pm

Bob Brown (and every other Parliamentarian)is duty bound to honour the commitments and/or values that they take to an election. To do otherwise is to not represent the people who voted for him. Meg Lees and the destruction of the Democrats is a very clear indication of what happens when you turn your back on your constituents.

Seano:

08 Sep 2013 3:03:13pm

If all the people who voted for Adam Bandt really want to pay a carbon tax so much, then I doubt anyone is going to try to stop them. If they want to pay it, then let them, as long as they don't try to force it on us normal people.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia:

Lets us debate on a simple issue here. Is the total CO2 emission of Australia important to global warming. I state clearly and simply NO. I claim the yes is based on ideology not fact.

My view is that it is NOT important because at about 1.3% of global total Australia's total CO2 emission is irrelevant. The errors/noise in the predictions of the highly nonlinear climate dynamics will swamped out anything less than 2%. Was it not Lorenz of MIT who studied chaos in meteorology and coined the "butterfly effect".

There is only one index/measure that is important in the fight against global warming, the TOTAL and GLOBAL emission of CO2. Strategies must be focused on reducing the global and total CO2 emission not on national indices. CO2 emission in Australia is just noise and distracts from needed global actions.

John:

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 2:59:09pm

Lord Mock - I don't believe you have properly read Mr. Goh's response. He is not saying do NOTHING per se, but rather do NOTHING in so far as focussing on endeavouring to reduce the minuscule emissions generated by Australia and, instead, focus on reducing CO2 emissions on a global scale where it really counts, e.g. in China and India.

That is a logical argument supported by the observation that the Australian dollar will buy far more effective outcomes off-shore if operating in the war against CO2 emissions in countries such as India and China.

How can you decry such a concept, if you are genuinely concerned about global warming. The idea is brilliant and bound to bring far more efficacy than a Carbon Tax or ETS scheme hatched on Australian soil with Australian money and applied to the Australian economy.

PW:

08 Sep 2013 12:55:29pm

The majority of Australians yesterday demonstrated emphatically that they couldn't care less what happens in 20, 50 or 100 years. They don't care what sort of a world they leave for their grandchildren. A few miserable dollars now is all that matters.

This election might well be looked upon as a watershed in the future, the day we stopped caring about what we leave for future generations. This era will be looked upon as a dark age, an age of greed and grasping. If one of the richest countries on earth cannot do this, we are headed towards the inevitable.

Labor should support the repeal of the carbon tax. The people have made their decision.

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 2:31:16pm

Labor should NOT support the repeal of the carbon tax. Me and many like me voted for them to work to protect the carbon tax and to try and ensure it remains. I'm not sure why you think that the wishes of those who voted to retain it are somehow meaningless. If enough members in the senate oppose the repeal then that is exactly how the people wanted it.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 3:05:38pm

Umm ... it could also be that the average Australian did not follow the how-to-vote guidelines for the Senate, given the crushing defeat of Labor in the Lower House. That seems, to me, to be the more probable explanation.

In any event, who says that the Senate ticket carries a higher mandate than the House of Representatives ticket?

If you add up the primary votes for both Houses and combine them, on that basis one must conclude that the mandate which the Australian public has given the new Government is to reject the Carbon Tax.

For the luddites in the Senate who persist in believing otherwise, they are no more than strutting cockerels, drunk on a self-delusional sense of power.

Seano:

08 Sep 2013 5:11:05pm

Glad I got your attention. 9-)

Remember three years ago with that hung parliament, and Gillard got sucked in by Bob Brown and made a deal that was completely unnecessary because there was no way the Greens were going to side with the LNP anyway?

Then there was the carbon tax, which, as yesterday's result proves quite clearly, the majority of Australians never wanted, yet back then WE were the losers. How many times did we have to get reminded over the past three years that it was democracy? How many times did we get told that WE lost the 2010 election fair and square - a hung parliament?

Now democracy has done a backflip, so live with it. You'll get your chance to screw the country up again in three years time, but right now, you're the loser. That's democracy, didn't you say? Paybacks are a bish eh?

ThatFlemingGent:

08 Sep 2013 9:50:10pm

"Then there was the carbon tax, which, as yesterday's result proves quite clearly, the majority of Australians never wanted, yet back then WE were the losers."

62% of Australians support a carbon pricing mechanism (Lonergan, July 2013). Your point is invalid and assumes that the Liberal Party voter supports their entire policy positions 100% across the board (which is logically unprovable)

"How many times did we have to get reminded over the past three years that it was democracy? How many times did we get told that WE lost the 2010 election fair and square - a hung parliament? "

How many times did we hear the Liberal membership and their supporters - particularly columnists in the gutter "opinion" press - claim that the Gillard government in particular was "illegitimate" and that the support of the Independents was a travesty given that they "came from conservative electorates" (and thus in their minds went against the "natural order")

Given the above a reminder would have been appropriate - if the offenders had cared enough to listen!

"Now democracy has done a backflip, so live with it. You'll get your chance to screw the country up again in three years time, but right now, you're the loser. That's democracy, didn't you say? Paybacks are a bish eh?"

This doesn't mean we aren't entitled to voice our opposition - and we will in spite of degenerates like Seano.

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 1:19:10am

Parties, not party, damon. Setting aside the votes that went to the very minor parties that had eliminating the carbon tax as their policy the combined primary vote for the anti-carbon tax coalition and the equally anti-carbon tax PUP was 51%.

Kathy Williams-DeVries:

The Reg:

08 Sep 2013 12:28:53pm

Yes, as an Abbott supporter this time, I have to agree on that. There should be a way we can get the best policies of both sides up and the others negated....but that would appear to be virtually impossible. Solomon for President perhaps?

DAMO:

08 Sep 2013 1:59:14pm

The Reg , maybe you forgot the brilliant part of our political system called the Senate which provides the checks and balances on absolute power in our political system.Now if the Libs controlled both the Reps and the Senate then i would call that a mandate.And dont both major parties hate the senate ??

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:37:01pm

... and with a mere two-hundred votes and an opaque preference deal with your local Green Hypocrite you too can join the Senate.. Just like the Australian sports party.DAMO - the Australian public are sick to death of the Greens. You are one election away from extinction.

DAMO:

08 Sep 2013 4:01:24pm

Ah ghost, dont think because i support a DEMOCRATIC parliament i vote Green either. I would think any INTELLIGENT citizen prefers a true democracy which reflects the will of the people rather than a select group of individuals.Maybe your comments speak more about your own beliefs rather than my own.

DAMO:

John:

08 Sep 2013 12:45:31pm

It has been pretty clear for quite a long time that Australia will be facing some quite severe problems in the not-so-distant future because of our aged population. We will be faced with fewer productive (read "tax paying") people and more retired and pensioned people.

Some consideration has to be given to broadening the taxpayer base, and Australian born children is one way. Increased immigration is another, so you pays your penny and you takes your choice.

Control of world population is one consideration, but Australia's position is quite another.

John:

08 Sep 2013 3:02:11pm

No young people, no employees.

No employees, no businesses.

No businesses, no profits.

No profits, no taxes.

It's a cruel world out there, Ape. Go and have a stroll through your local shopping mall and have a look at all the empty shops. Those small business owners are not part of the community any more, and they are avoiding paying tax by going broke.

A Football Fan:

09 Sep 2013 3:36:08am

"It's a cruel world out there, Ape. Go and have a stroll through your local shopping mall and have a look at all the empty shops. Those small business owners are not part of the community any more, and they are avoiding paying tax by going broke."

And then there is even a bigger problem. The threat of the rent-seeker such as Westfield Group. Have you ever bothered to inquire how much rent is demanded from businesses in those shopping malls?

Don't do it. When you find out how much the rents are, you'll get a heart-attack.

John:

09 Sep 2013 7:59:33am

Small business shop owners were able to operate in Westfield Shopping Malls for many years, Fan. That's how and why Westfield developed and grew. Without retail businesses, Westfield would not have a business.

What changed the situation was the carbon tax. When Julia Gillard and the Greens imposed the tax Westfield added a clause to its rental agreements passing it on by way of a 10% levy on rentals, and that meant a $1,000 per week cost increase for even the very small businesses such as hairdressers, small clothing boutiques and the like.

Not many of those retailers could absorb a $1,000 a week hike, so they simply shut up shop. It's not the rent giving them the heart attacks - it's the on-costs.

Wary:

09 Sep 2013 1:02:51pm

Exactly the kind of propaganda about the carbon tax that has undermined an important and brave piece of policy. So... You honestly think that an opportunistic grab of $1000 per week from small business by a large corporation can be blamed on the carbon tax and not simply destructive small-minded greed?

John:

Whether it was the result of greed or some other motivation is irrelevant, Wary.

The carbon tax allowed Westfield, justified or not, to hike up EVERY shop rental. Without the tax they couldn't have done that.

And in any event, Westfield is paying the carbon tax to the Government. Do you expect Westfield not to pass on a cost of business like that or simply absorb it as a gesture of goodwill? That Company is a business, not a charity, and costs are always passed on.

John:

A Football Fan:

09 Sep 2013 1:03:12pm

Trying to link Westfield-rents with carbon-tax is a dishonest attempt, John. The rents in those shopping malls were exuberantly high twenty-five years ago as they are now. I know few people who ran businesses in the malls. The rent for a small stand (10-sqm) set up in the middle of the thoroughfare inside the mall was $2000 a week. I knew one person in the food court who used to have two cash registers -one under the bench- paying $250,000 a year for selling hot-dogs & sandwiches. Some people can not afford rents by selling cheap Chinese T-shirt & shoes in the malls anymore. This is the reason why the shops are empty. Westfield is a greedy rent-seeking corporation as any other corporation.

John:

09 Sep 2013 2:03:11pm

A non-relevant reply, FootballFan.

First, I did not attempt to link "Westfield-rents with carbon-tax" as you allege. Westfield Holdings amended all rental agreements in their shopping malls, and specifically informed tenants that a 10% surcharge to cover the cost of the carbon tax was to be imposed. All I did was report this Westfield action.

Second, whether your claim that those rents were exuberantly high is correct or not has nothing to do with the level of rents now. Tenants in those malls were paying the rents before the tax, so you argument falls flat on it's face.

I don't know anything about people running a "black cash operation" under cover of a legitimate business, so I'll leave you to justify that claim.

As to "cheap T-shirts & shoes", shops were selling those before the carbon tax came in and they closed down after the carbon tax came in. That had no relation to them being overcharged or not.

graazt:

A Football Fan:

09 Sep 2013 6:25:13pm

"A non-relevant reply, FootballFan."

You are entitled to your opinion. But this does not change the facts on the ground. Westfield's attempt to link rents with carbon-tax to rip-off its customers is a gross dishonesty. And your attempt to come in defence of a dishonest corporation is even worse, to say the least, John.

"Second, whether your claim that those rents were exuberantly high is correct or not has nothing to do with the level of rents now. Tenants in those malls were paying the rents before the tax, so you argument falls flat on it's face."

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the rents now, that was my intention to point out how high the rents were 25 years ago and how high they are now when Westfield is ripping-off its customers year in year out.

"I don't know anything about people running a "black cash operation" under cover of a legitimate business, so I'll leave you to justify that claim."

I don't have to justify anything. I was telling you what I saw. It is one businessman's *rationalization" against another that you should already be familiar with in these kind of business dealings.

"As to "cheap T-shirts & shoes", shops were selling those before the carbon tax came in and they closed down after the carbon tax came in. That had no relation to them being overcharged or not."

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 3:08:30pm

Agreed! .... and there are not too many conservatives who really, deep down, support the policy. It goes against the tradition of conservative politics.

I am a conservative voter and only because the issue of the economy over-rides small-target Policies, (such as the paid parental leave policy of The Coalition), did Abbott receive the full endorsement of the conservative vote.

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 12:26:54pm

You couldn't be more wrong, each Member of Parliament needs to honour the intentions of those who voted for them. I voted for candidates who promised to work toward the retention of the Carbon Tax/ETS and I expect them to do just that.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 12:59:24pm

The carbon tax was implemented by people who promised not to do it. Any comment on that?

The Senate will change in July 2014. There may be a need for a double dissolution to correct this. What we will need first is for a new ALP leader and hopefully they will respect the mandate that the majority of Australians gave.

goodvibes:

08 Sep 2013 1:21:01pm

The way the senate vote is going Abbott should have enough numbers in the Senate after July 1 thanks to conservative independents and small parties taking votes off Labor and the Greens. Under these circumstances Labor will try to show a conscience by opposing the carbon tax removal but Abbott's strong mandate should get it through.

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 2:47:57pm

Anybody paying attention to the entirety of discussions prior to the 2010 election would have clearly known that the ALP was 100% behind the idea of carbon pricing. That the hung Parliament changed the way in which the ALP proceeded to its stated goal of emissions trading is simply a matter of politics, not policy.I have always been fully supportive of a carbon tax, more so now that it has been in action and has been effective and relatively painless. Clearly, most of the doom and gloom attributed to the carbon tax is complete rubbish, with the carbon tax being blamed for things completely unrelated to it.

Spenda:

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 1:25:39am

The coalition already stated months ago that their intention to do that wouldn't be possible due to the state of the economy, Paul01. Their declaration to deliver a surplus in the first year of a coalition government was based on faulty Labor numbers that were tens of billions of dollars off and the declaration was openly and publicly withdrawn when the real, far worse, numbers became known.

John:

08 Sep 2013 3:05:07pm

No, Adelaide Rose, Labor did not promise that. Julia Gillard, on behalf of the ALP, promised that there would not be a carbon tax under any Government she led and promised that the carbon price would not be implemented until after the 2013 election.

A happy little debunker:

08 Sep 2013 3:15:47pm

''The government has decided to terminate the carbon tax, to help cost of living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business,'' Mr Rudd said in a Townsville press conference on Tuesday"

So that would be a core / non core promise type of thing.

They also promised to never introduce a carbon tax, something Rudd agreed they had no mandate for.

DAMO:

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 10:21:02pm

But it does present Labor voters with a dilemma, assuming they did not want a Carbon Tax, given that Labor said there would be no Carbon Tax under the Government it led. Shouldn't they have voted for the Coalition in this election because it has stayed the course with no Carbon Tax, while Labor did the opposite and introduced a Carbon Tax AFTER it was elected.

So .... it makes Labor voters look silly. Didn't they vote for Labor because they didn't want a Carbon Tax in the previous elections?

That is why conservative voters do not trust the arguments of Labor voters on the issue of climate change and a Carbon Tax. Labor voters have effectively shown their hand. It is more important for them to justify their vote than justify good policies.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia:

But may I ask you to think deeply. Do you want a carbon tax /ETS in Australia or do you want real and measurable impact on TOTAL global CO2 emission.

Example if it costs YY billion of dollars to get one million solar panels installed on roofs in Australia you will find that YY billion dollars will you about FOUR million solar panels installed in the Himalayan mountains and FOUR times more, globally of CO2 emission is reduced.

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 2:41:47pm

It is not our responsibility to install solar panels in the Himalayas, it is however our responsibility to do whatever we can to reduce our own emissions. The carbon tax was working to reduce Australian emissions and despite being effective and relatively painless it is to be dumped for Direct Action, a policy clearly designed to deliberately fail. With Abbott in power anyway we will lose our ability to have any positive impact in the world as he trashes our global standing by significantly reducing foreign aid.

Adelaide Rose:

08 Sep 2013 5:14:58pm

Whenever I read your posts I get the sense that you believe you are intellectually superior and that you feel that your beliefs should somehow be accepted just because they come from you. I also need to tell you that I also read your posts and conclude that you are no less ideologically driven than anybody else, more so than most, and I generally determine that you are wrong in the majority of your assertions.

Spenda:

But you have not understood Dr. Goh's message at all, so it is no wonder you feel he is intellectually superior.

To say it is not our responsibility to install solar panels in the Himalayas is, quite frankly, a clear demonstration of your lack of understanding of his point.

His point is that we are wasting our time focusing on climate change 'fixes' based on Australia's minuscule emission rate, compared with the overall global rate of emissions, specifically those of China and India.

He is saying that our effort, money and resources would not be wasted if we were to spend Australian dollars on effective climate change deterrents in nations like China and India, because Australian dollars in those countries can buy a thousand times more effective solutions for them - due to the monetary exchange rate and low cost of labour there - but the same amount of money would buy little in Australia and achieve nothing.

More importantly, these nations are the nations which ARE emitting the highest levels of CO2 in the world, so ... to assist them in reducing their level of emissions is worthwhile, given that their annual INCREASE in emissions EVERY YEAR is higher than Australia's TOTAL overall emissions.

It is a brilliant concept and anyone who is seriously interested in reducing GLOBAL emissions can hardly argue otherwise.

Leafygreen:

09 Sep 2013 8:20:17am

We export iron ore and buy it back as a cheap car, fridge or washing machine. The conversion happens in countries that do not care for carbon emissions, the environment in general or for the health and welfare of their workers, who are barely paid a living wage.

If we do the conversion here, we refuse to pay the extra dollars and close our eyes to the true cost to the planet

We can reduce our emissions to zero, through application of expensive technology, but only if we all pledge to not import bad products. Is that likely? So what is more likely to happen is we kill manufacturing and low level jobs here and shift the carbon liability offshore. But guess what, we don,t get to keep the clean bit of the climate for our self.China builds more coal fired power stations to look after their own desire for a higher standard of living. That dirty brown power, from aust coal supplies industry that makes consumer products from our ores and minerals. We are offshoring our carbon responsibility, when we should be offshoring our mitigation as well.

We are not separate for the global economy. Climate change is a global problem. This is not the time be petulant.

John:

09 Sep 2013 10:37:18am

That's just a silly and unsupported allegation.

Just because we can buy a T-shirt made in Bangladesh by a worker on a pitifully low wage does not mean that the Koreans or Japanese or Singaporeans, who sell us all our beloved tablets, smartphones and plasma TVs, washing machines and laptops do not get paid very well.

Go to Seoul and look at the LG empire, just as one example. You'll find many thousands of very highly paid workers there.

And climate change is not a global problem. It is a global inevitability as it has been for millions of years and will be for millions more years. We didn't do it, we can't undo it, and we will simply live with it, as we have done for thousands of years.

Leafygreens:

09 Sep 2013 11:37:55am

You would find my opinion silly because you are a climate skeptic who sees no preventable consequence in the unregulated use of cheap fossil fuels.If we have no influence, we have nothing to lose. If we are cuasing irreperable harm, we have a great deal to lose. The consequence of doing nothing could be very high. The consequence of doing something is relatively low. If it is dealt with globally we have more chance of sucess.I'd rather take the action road and be laughed at, than do nothing and wreck the place.

I am guilty of generalisation. For that I aplogise. The companies, brands and places you list are no longer the cheapest/ nastiest, and have evolved up the industrial ladder just as our industrial society did, but I still stand by my silly allegation that we refuse to pay the extra dollars and close our eyes to the true cost to the planet

Plus LG, Sharp and Panasonic equipment comes in several grades, not all of which are made in the better conditions of first wave Asian economies, or under cautious environmental stewardship.

Yes there is wage equity and safety in some Asian nations, but equally low end manufacturing is subbed to places where costs are low and compliance even lower.

While the Japanes might be good at looking after their own people and environment, their global companies are not universal in their application of HQ contry law, just as Aussie companies manufacture under the prevailing laws in the country of supply.

Is the whole of LGs supply chain best practice for the environment and the people? From the ore from Gina's pit to the Harvey Norman that sells me the washer: in the steel mill and the pressing plant, the component maker, the packaging manufacturer and the assembler? Are emissions low, where does the waste go? What fuel was used and how efficient are the plants? Was the wood & water from sustainable sources? Its not just about the wages.

John:

Yes, I am a an AGW sceptic. Yes, I insist that there is so little deleterious effect from fossil fuel use that it is undetectable.

No, we are not causing irreperable harm. We are causing nothing - even by our exports.

The cost of doing nothing is minus - we as a nation and the world as a whole will actually benefit from increased coal fired power.

And as a side benefit, those people who call for limits to population growth should acknowledge that prosperity leads to smaller families, lower birth rates and better child survival rates. Therefore, as the application of cheap coal-fired power is the quickest and best way to increase global prosperity, those people too should be demanding more fossil fuel power stations.

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:44:33pm

The "Brick with Eyes" is coming Miowarra. the Feeble minded, weak willed hypocritical Green reserve graders in the Senate wont make it to the first interchange when it comes to holding up the abolition of the Carbon tax in the Senate.

Anne T:

08 Sep 2013 1:12:51pm

Mr Dr BS Goh, I think if you want to make a reasonable point then you have to express it in a reasonable way. I am afraid that your opening gambit of "and stop ramping down our throats their ideological hypes on global warming" is high on the hyperbole index and very low on the inisght and understanding index.

If you are making a call for a reasoned discussion by others, I recommend that you lead by example and do so yourself.

The Australian dollar can buy tens of thousands of more solar panels in India and China for India and China (the worlds highest CO2 emitters), than it can buy solar panels in Australia for Australia.

Therefore, he is absolutely right to argue that a far greater impact could be made by Australia in reducing global warming by using the Australian dollar off-shore where it can go many times further and where it counts. Much more logical than playing around with expensive and ineffectual programs, such as carbon taxation and ETS schemes, which achieve nothing in the over-all CO2 battle, given Australia's extremely small emission rate, when measured on a global scale.

Anne T:

08 Sep 2013 4:04:35pm

Spenda, perhaps another way to explain. Mr Goh cannot make a strong case if he proceeds from a fallacious claim. I refer you to his opening remarks where he casually dismisses the IPCC panel of expert scientists.

Before he proceeds in his argument, he needs to establish that what he says about the IPCC panel can be substantiated.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 10:49:25pm

If you follow the IPCC Reports and compare them with peer reviewed scientists' research you will know that Dr. Goh's casual dismissal of the IPCC Reports is justified. He assumes that everyone interested in the subject is properly informed before they launch their arguments. There is only so much space in here and to educate everyone on that score requires considerably more space.

Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge, who acted as a referee on the IPCC report, complained bitterly about the deletions, insertions and alterations to scientific outcomes reported by the IPCC, as did David Wasdell, the independent analyst and leading author on the subject, who was asked to review the IPCC Report.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 10:36:58pm

Obviously I have read his arguments and understand his proposal, given that I agree with the premise that the Austalian dollar would be far more effectively employed in China or India to combat climate change.

What is there not to understand about that??

I happen to agree with him about the lobbying for a Carbon Tax - it is thrust down our throats as if it were the 'b' all and end all solution, when it is a disastrous and stupid policy.

Disastrous because it increases the price of our export products and makes them uncompetitive on the trading platform overseas and stupid because it will bring absolutely zilch impact upon reducing global warming.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 1:31:35pm

Sadly, Goh, yours is a single level-headed, logical and insightful voice lost in a wilderness of clamorous hype, hysteria and partisan politicking - all of which is highly deleterious and the more so within the hypocrisy and disingenuous declarations of concern for the future of the globe.

Why DO the ALP and The Greens find it so difficult to address themselves honestly and sincerely to the real cause of global warming - over-population. The Greens and the ALP both acknowledge that it is homo-sapien induced, SO .... it is no quantum leap to embrace the very next and most obvious of conclusions - reduce the birth rate of the homo sapien!! Simply absolute logic, but then the Greens are totally bereft of anything which remotely resembles political logic and the ALP is locked into ideological wars with conflicting outcomes.

If we give global warming 'the given' of being homo-sapien induced, then I cannot agree with Abbot's parental leave policy - it encourages more babies!

Steve Mount:

DR BS, quote : "Abbott has promised that his Govt will get rid of the carbon tax. The ALP and Greens need to respect the Australian voters..."

Failure of logic there.

Abbott promised. The ALP and Greens did not, so they are under no obligation whatsoever to accede to his desires, or help fulfil his 'promise'.

He made a promise which requires the Senate stamp, you know that, and he knows that. A person giving guarantees or making promises in matters over which they do not have total authority is simply misleading.

If there's someone else who can ruin your 'promise', then you neither have the authority to make it in the first instance, and should never have done so.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia:

Steve. You are right. It is all about politics. I am an environmental scientist and I want to push for real and cost effective actions by Australia to fight global warming.

Look back the last eight years and see the devastation caused by these illusions on carbon tax/ETS on Australian leaders.

Firstly Rudd used it as the most effective weapon then to get rid of Howard.

Then Turnbull was thrown out as leader of LP because he got it wrong, having been the CEO of a major stock broking Co in Australia and thus naturally would buy into a financial market to fight global warming.

Then Gillard, etc got rid of Rudd because of Rudd's failure on ETS.

Then Gillard got branded as a Liar over the carbon tax for which she never recovered.

Then Rudd got kicked out in the latest Elections as carbon tax was still a major issue.

What has Australia achieved in fighting global warming? NOTHING worth talking about except of some nasty things. It was an obscenity that the worst polluting power stations in Australia, owned mainly by foreigners got about a billion dollars in compensation. And they simply passed the increased costs to customers. Combet signed an Agreement at Cancum to pass ten percent of the carbon tax to UN another billion dollars??

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 11:02:16pm

Yes, it is a flight of the imagination for any political party to pretend that a tax on big business will not, inevitably, be passed on to the man on the street, which is exactly what has happened. (Sorry I don't care for political correctness - it is mumbo jumbo invented by over-sensitive people, so I still say 'man' on the street.)

Your argument is a brilliant concept and I think you should take it to the Australian Government, the Abbott Government, to the UN - sadly they are no more effective than a bunch of old women - and anywhere and everywhere else that matters. It is the only sensible proposal that I have read yet, regarding a possible and realistic reduction in global warming which could be adopted by Governments world wide.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia:

09 Sep 2013 10:02:08am

Many thanks for your support.

I am a rocket scientist with focus on optimal control theory which is all about long term optimal strategies. You need it to drive a rocket to Pluto moving through billions of kilometers and getting there in 13 years.

Song Jian China's rocket scientist and a specialist in optimal control played a critical role on China one child policy. He did the modeling and convinced the leaders of China to introduce the one child policy.

This month I am back in Australia to give lectures on maths in environmental sciences.

Serenity_Gate:

08 Sep 2013 2:32:49pm

"the only answer is the one-child policy"Yes, great way to increase the number of males in the world.How many girls were killed off in China during that debacle?Aren't they now finding it hard to find women to marry now?

Great policy.

Actually, you should be telling the Catholic Church to repeal their condemnation of condom use or other forms of contraception.

Education is the key. The more education women have, the less children they have.

Also, Rudd was changing the "carbon tax" to an emission-trading scheme, which big business will love, as it give them another way to launder money

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia:

I am a Catholic and I am very annoyed with my Church which is destroying abortion laws in the Philippines.

Education?? Tell it to the Talibans and others who are killing girls wanting to have education.

The situation in Asia is beyond the comprehensive of many Australians. In the period 1800 to 1980 about 150,000,000 people died of starvation in China. Another 100,000,000 died from wars and revolutions. The Japanese killed 30,000,000 Chinese in two wars one in 1895 and the other 1937-1945.

Watch Egypt's overpopulation. It is an example of a failing State with 90m in a small arid region. India is not far behind with 1.2 billion and 180,000,000 added in preceding ten years. The rupees crashed to record levels.

Wary:

09 Sep 2013 12:01:07pm

Actually, rather than the one child policy which is dictatorial in the extreme, and is currently causing all kinds of social strife in china... How about free and accessible contraception and affordable, legal and non-stigmatised abortion throughout the world. Give women a true choice and I promise you the population growth will slow down as it has in western countries, where women are educated and empowered as a matter of course.Plus, apart from the fact that I couldn't stomach any government telling me I couldn't have two children, my boys bring so much joy to us, each other and our extended family... Do we now want to forgo this joy in order for economic growth?? I wouldn't!

Sack:

smicko:

08 Sep 2013 10:49:00am

I'M glad you agree the Coalition has a mandate to remove the hated carbon tax.Now, will defeated Labour show the same good sense, or will they stymie the wishes of the Australian people on this issue in opposition?

OntheRun:

Patsy:

08 Sep 2013 12:44:51pm

I think the ALP should vote to repeal it in line with the electorates choice, but I wouldnt blame them if they decided it against it on the grounds the coalition would mangle the management of the repeal and also the implementation of direct action. To avoid this potential budget blowout is an overriding obligation to the people.

micka:

peter chen:

Terry:

08 Sep 2013 11:00:08am

Only a politics lecturer would think that teaching facts about history, that mothers look after their children better than strangers, that you have to choose your priorities in life and that freezing aid levels are contentious issues.

peter chen:

Terry:

08 Sep 2013 12:55:33pm

Wow! I'm a hegemony! To think that I, all by myself, am joining that proud tradition begun by the Athenians. Yes, even those of us not lecturers in politics know what it means. Of course, no-one who studies the "new history" would. It belongs to the "dead white male" bit that can be ignored.

But nice use of the "put down", always an indicator of a lack of ability to reply to an argument. (Even if it is only "common sense".)

PS Why no mention of the racist anti-Jew speakers ushered into Australia by members of the ALP and Greens? You know, the ones that glorify killing others? The ones that name streets after murderers? Such actions have driven me (like many others) from the party I supported all my life.

timothyh:

08 Sep 2013 1:29:39pm

Only a politics lecturer would think that teaching facts about history, that mothers look after their children better than strangers, that you have to choose your priorities in life and that freezing aid levels are contentious issues.

No wonder the self described "progressives" are out of touch

@Terry.No. Peter said your *attitudes* are hegemonic, so don't take it so personal. And they *are* hegemonic views, because they are the dominant views (for the time being). But do not make the mistake of thinking that, because your views are (momentarily) dominant, that they are completely, unequivocally, universally, the *correct* views (for all time). A more nuanced attitude would help your arguments greatly, and remember that a significant minority disagrees with your 'dominant' views.

Peripherally, and very personally, as an at home Dad of some twenty years experience, with three exceptional young adults to my credit, I find some of your disturbingly narrow 'dominant' views acutely repugnant.

Terry:

I am quite interested in which of my "disturbingly narrow" views are "acutely repugnant".

Surely not teaching facts? I realise that distorting history is a well used adjunct to "progressive" thought, but surely the odd fact can't hurt?

Perhaps my view that mothers care for their children better than do strangers? I would hazard a guess that over the millennia, a large number of people have accepted this without much repugnance.

I wouldn't think that having to identify priorities in life was an "attitude" - more a reality. But maybe that is what you find hard to stomach? That you cannot get everything you want? Most people realise this when they become adults. I believe Mr Mick Jagger sang a song about it.

So it must be freezing aid levels. Believe it or not, I would much prefer to increase aid, but I recognise it is not popular. Given the way it is often misspent, this is perhaps to be expected. The way to address this problem, however, is to get rid of the waste, not continue and just spend more. then public opinion can be changed, rather than ignored.

I also am more in favour of direct assistance to those in need, rather than band-aid solutions. I suspect, however, that you would prefer to simply welcome refugees, rather than take positive action to allow them the freedom to live in their own homes free of persecution.

As for my PS, it was a simple reference to the author's decision to include a throw away line about "anti-Islamist" speakers: apparently this was part of the Liberal Party's hidden agenda. Since he saw this as worth mentioning, I wondered why he had no problem with Islamofascists being invited to encourage mass murder and terrorism.

Was that also repugnant?

PPS I too have brought up three youngsters. (One of whom I believe votes Green - she'll grow out if it I hope). I have encouraged them to think, rather than believe.

Believe it or not, outside the inner city seats where the "elites" live, the vast majority of people also raise children. That is probably why common sense is so popular.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 4:45:31pm

Don't feel that it's necessary to engage when people like timothyh make statements like "I find some of your disturbingly narrow 'dominant' views acutely repugnant", Terry. It's nothing more than a variation of the standard "That offends me" line, delivered when no other argument can be thought up. Nor should you feel the need to engage when they make strawman arguments such as "But do not make the mistake of thinking that, because your views are (momentarily) dominant, that they are completely, unequivocally, universally, the *correct* views (for all time)". You are doubtlessly aware, as we all are, that no view or standpoint is correct for all time. Standpoints should change as circumstances change and you gave no indication that you share the same opinion as timothyh's strawman. When you engage with trolls all you do is demean yourself and raise them to your level.

timothyh:

08 Sep 2013 8:40:01pm

@Reaver & Terry.Reaver, I must take you to task over your ad hominem attack on me as a troll. Unwarranted, that was, if you care to check my history on this site. And I quite explicitly said "Peripherally, and very personally, as an at home Dad ... ", which could not be more clearly a 'that offends me' line, so please do not make it seem like I am trying to be dishonest. I was trying to say that Terry's implication that only women can be successful full time at home parents is repugnant to *me*. In your world view I may be wrong to feel this way, of course, but I am probably *permitted* to have this view.

Also, apologies to Terry: Reaver is right, and I concede that some clumsy editing on my behalf may have unwittingly created a straw man argument around this issue. It probably slipped through because of heightened emotions from my belief that you, Terry, are attacking the legitimacy of my major life's work to date. That is, rearing three well-adjusted young adults as a full time at home Dad.

Terry, I stand by my assertions that your attitudes are hegemonic, and lack a nuanced appreciation of the need for plural views in our complex society. Your subsequent and, I think, quite hostile over-explanation of *your* views tends to support this observation. Dominant does not always mean better: I unapologetically still assert this to be true. After all, 'slavery is good' has, at various times throughout history, been an unquestioned dominant meme in many societies.

Finally, I accept that I am unlikely to change either yours or Terry's (hegemonic) 'common sense' attitudes, and good for you.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 9:25:18pm

Of course you're permitted to have that view, timothyh, but the fact that you hold it does not validate it. An objection based solely on outrage is an argument that's easily and justifiably dismissed regardless of whether it's held peripherally, is very personal or whether it's based on your family status. I have no idea why Terry's comment that mothers look after their children better than strangers offends you so or why you would have felt the need to point out that you're an at home Dad of some twenty years experience and with three exceptional young adults to your credit given that Terry's comment was a comparison between the child rearing skills of the children's mothers and strangers. To your children you are neither. It is just as valid to say that fathers look after their children better than strangers as it is to say that mothers look after their children better than strangers. It's a matter of parent vs. stranger not a matter of mother vs. father vs. stranger.

Spenda:

08 Sep 2013 11:40:56pm

mmm ... but Terry didn't say that mother's rear children better than fathers. He in fact said that they rear them better than STRANGERS! I think that everyone would agree with that on a generalised basis - individuals outside the norm excluded. If it is hegemonic so what? It IS common sense.

You wrote:

"Only a politics lecturer would think that teaching facts about history, that mothers look after their children better than strangers, that you have to choose your priorities in life and that freezing aid levels are contentious issues."

You then claim these are typically the views of a 'self-described progressive'. None of these tenets express a 'progressive' attitude but rather, I would have thought, a conservative attitude.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 1:08:24pm

Must be difficult when the majority use common sense. It really makes it difficult to demand specialised funds during a financial downturn for projects that have no economic benefit and arguably no intellectual benefit as well. Most papers written will be shelved and never referenced, let alone have the recommendations or knowledge within implemented.

Gr8Ape:

HaroldHopes:

08 Sep 2013 10:10:57pm

Some do it because it is the only way they can afford to provide any more then the most basic existance for their children. Others do it becsuse they need to help pay for the mcmansion, two new cars, home entertainment, fancy holidays etc.

John:

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 4:50:15pm

"It's Dr Chen dude." Why is it that the Charles Dance line from Game of Thrones- "Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king"- always springs to mind when people start complaining that people are referring to them using the wrong title. A person confident in their own abilities wouldn't care.

peter chen:

08 Sep 2013 12:01:21pm

But of course I'm not saying that, read the article. What I'm defending is peer review as the basis for decision making in research funding, as opposed to arbitary political intervention: would you like that approach applied by Labor or the Greens when they are in government? No, neither would I.

Gr8Ape:

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 3:16:43pm

Of course the funding pool is limited. All funding is. The "merit" comes via grant applications and an assessment panel. The criteria and selection process to determine "merit" has a lot to be desired.

It becomes a game of repeating phrases back to departments, using clich?s and feel good words. Its not decided on the possible benefits of the research or action. Its largely decided on what will result in the largest immediate applause.

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:51:08pm

Your article lacks substance and policy facts. I am not aware of cuts to the budget of either the ARC or the NHMRC beyond the efficiency dividend increase proposed by the Coalition? I also suggest that you review the ANAO publications on Grants management. Are these procedures likely to change under the Coalition?

Brad:

08 Sep 2013 11:22:40am

And, as an added bonus, the last minute internet filter debarcle makes it obvious that the LNP have a frothingly conservative censorship policy all written up and ready to go. Just as soon as pesky moderates like Malcom Turnbull are expunged from the party.

peter chen:

gaznazdiak:

08 Sep 2013 11:51:48am

Congratulations Australia for dumping the people who kept our economy afloat when those around us were sinking in the GFC; congratulations for being naive and gullible enough to elect Mista Rabbit the racist misogynist who publicly admitted that he thinks it's acceptable for him to lie the the people and parliament if he thinks he can get away with it; Congratulations for being naive and gullible enough to believe the election promises of this self-confessed liar that he will not slash jobs and pensions, not remove penalty rates, and not raise the GST, do you not remember the election promise of Howard, another Liberal liar, that there would be "No GST, never ever!", who not only had no intention of keeping that promise but involved us in an unnecessary war we had no part in; And if you are that naive and gullible, then hey, I've just been given the contract to sell the Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House, going cheap, make me an offer!

harry:

08 Sep 2013 12:09:41pm

Yeah, I remember the election promise of Mr Howard, the difference is when he changed his mind he took it to an election and let the people decide. Ms Gillard made a rather famous promise before the last election, and din't have the integrity to stick by her election commitment.

Actually if you thought the flushing of $270B down the toilet on consumption was such a greta plan, then its architect, Mr Swan was dumped by the Labor party in June, that's when they brought back the guy that Mr Swan called dysfunctional, and that many in his party said was a psychopath. Your awesome leader, Kevin "selfie" Rudd.

The real question now is given the result of the election, when will the ABC actually hire a conservative presenter of a National prime-time political program, instead of the wall-to-wall leftist mediocrity that hides within its sheltered workshop?

Gr8Ape:

harry:

08 Sep 2013 3:37:39pm

That's where he voted against policies he didn't agree with, is that it? And given that he didn't have a majority in either house, how did he manage to undermine parliament? Oh, every so often the Greens would vote with him ... wow.

Today we had a bunch of Labor leaders saying they would oppose all the policies that Abbott took to this election. I guess they must be undermining parliament too.

Pun:

09 Sep 2013 1:24:06pm

Policies he, Abbott, didn't agree with? Wasn't that the criticism Abbott levelled at Turnbul when, after defeating Turnbull for the Liberal leadership by one vote, he said Turnbull couldn't just agree with and negotiate with Rudd on an ETS?

neil:

gaznazdiak:

08 Sep 2013 12:46:47pm

No neil, as a matter of fact, Mista Rabbit is not MY Prime Minister and never will be. He is the PM that is the unfortunate, inevitable result of the narcissistic white-anting campaign instituted by Rudd (who I despise as much as Rabbit) because the Labor Party had the outrageous temerity to choose another leader. Now that they are in power, let's just watch the false promises of the coalition, the group that puts the welfare of the likes of Gina Rinehart and "Twiggy" Forrest ahead of those of the people who elected them, fall one after one after one.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 5:00:15pm

If you are an Australian then Tony Abbott is your Prime Minister whether you like it or not, gaznazdiak, just as Rudd, then Gillard and then Rudd again were our Prime Ministers whether we liked it or not.

gaznazdiak:

09 Sep 2013 12:51:48pm

Technically reaver, that is correct, but in my humble opinion there has not been a Liberal PM worthy of the office or my respect since John Gorton. I will never consider Mista Rabbit and his elitist cronies to be MY government, even though I respect the Australian electorate's right to make the mistake of accepting their "wooden nickel".

Jack:

08 Sep 2013 2:42:24pm

Abbott is unlikely to ever be my Prime Minister, it did not take Howard long to lose my trust and Tony is faced with regaining my trust that he lost as opposition leader before he will ever be my prime minister. At the moment he is simply the Prime Minister of the 40% of the Australian population who voted for him directly, after allowing for informal votes and failures to vote. Mr Abbott made that entirely clear himself when he declared he would refuse to be Prime Minister if our (jerry mandered) system did not give him a majority of seats, even without a majority of the popular vote.

harry:

08 Sep 2013 3:43:53pm

Abbott led a Coalition going into this election. At the moment that Coalition has 45.5% of the primary vote. The Labor Party has 33.85%. If you hate Australia's democratic process so much, perhaps you could propose a better one, or move to a country more to your liking.

A Football Fan:

"And if you are that naive and gullible, then hey, I've just been given the contract to sell the Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House, going cheap, make me an offer!"

Those structures are outdated, Gaz. James packer and Barry O'Farrell are better salesman.

They are going to construct a brand new 250m-tall tower, draped in a white veil of sculptured glass, will rise above Sydney Harbour at Barangaroo by 2018. Mr Packer's Crown Ltd expects to pull in at least $1 billion a year in gaming revenue over its first decade in operation in Sydney.

And we will see an increase in the number of benevolent rich people lining up to volunteer in soup kitchens.

Ghost of Christmas Present:

08 Sep 2013 3:59:50pm

Your post is a disgraceful, disrespectful rant but I accept that you are a well credentialed expert in naivity and gullibility. After all you a genuinely believe that you have a contract to sell the harbour bridge. No doubt the contact was signed by Christine Milne.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 4:58:15pm

Enjoy those sour grapes, won't you, gaznazdiak. Your philosophy and your party was rejected by the electorate. If they weren't then Labor would have been re-elected. Whether you Labor supporters deal with reality and move on or keep ranting is entirely up to you. If you and all of the other Labor rusted-ons do the former then you have a chance of re-election within a few short years, just as the coalition did after their 2007 defeat. If you do the latter then Labor will be out of office for a generation.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 9:32:35pm

If that were to happen, AFF, then Labor must be in a position to make use of it. If the electorate is sick of the coalition and Labor is still a mess then the electorate will turn elsewhere. PUP wouldn't have received such a large primary vote if both Labor and the coalition were in better shape. The Labor party has at most three years, likely less, to reform their structure, repair the dysfunctions within and rewin the trust of the electorate. If they don't or can't do that before the next election then they will lose that one too.

bluedog:

Jerry:

08 Sep 2013 11:57:34am

The Australian community has shown that it wants more independents and minor parties. The electoral system has only delivered part of what people want. A look at the proportion of votes for all parties across the country show that the major parties are still over represented. The Greens for example received 8% of the vote in the lower house and achieved 1 seat not one twelfth of the seats.This is about a 90% under representation of the vote received The PUP received one seat for 5% of the vote . Why are there not 10 greens and 7 PUP members of parliament.

The manipulation of preferences by the big parties shows that they do not want full representation of the ideas and values of Australians in the parliament.

The election was a farce, with voting being based on the basis of celebrity and personality not policy.

greenspider:

08 Sep 2013 1:47:54pm

"The manipulation of preferences by the big parties shows that they do not want full representation of the ideas and values of Australians in the parliament. "

There's no manipulation of preferences by anybody. That's a furphy. It's simply the result of the lack of sophistication by the voting public who seem unable to realise that by living a life of belief in entitlement, and having governments fix things that the people actually have the power to address, they collude with the parties and choose to meekly hand over their preferences to be disposed of by somebody else.

It took me half an hour to download and print a blank senate paper and go through it and mark my votes below the line in the days before polling. Including standing in line to vote, I was done in about 10 minutes, with my preferences going exactly where I wanted them to go. No manipulation by parties, major or minor.

Wake up Australia, your country's future is in your hands and you throw it away and then try and blame someone else.

The system doesn't need reform, what needs reform is voter education. Dumbing it down won't help anybody.

Miowarra:

Most of the micro-parties are merely factions or splinter single-issue groups of the majors and send their preferences back to Mummy.

Then there are the "preference-brokers" who do deals with the micro-parties and once they've collected enough deals to be worth the attention of the majors, they do deals, raking off a profit from both sides.

See this ABC report. [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/bitter-dispute-erupts-over-senate-preferences-in-queensland/4939300] and especially the membership of the "Minor Party Alliance"

I call that manipulation but you're right in that it only affects those voters who choose to vote above the line. Like yourself, I filled out all 110 boxes below the line just so that I would negate any preference deals.

Ghost of Christmas Present:

Gr8Ape:

08 Sep 2013 2:28:45pm

I looked up the way each of the parties and individuals were directing their preferences and chose the one that I felt most comfortable with. Of course it helps to have a general idea of where each of those on the ballot paper are coming from.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 5:05:01pm

If you knew how MPs were elected then you wouldn't have to ask that question, Jerry. Members are elected to the House only by those in their own electorate. The majority of voters wanted to be represented by a Green in only one electorate. In 149 others the voters choose to elect other candidates. We're not going to change how parliamentarians are elected just because the candidates you prefer aren't elected.

Jerry:

08 Sep 2013 7:16:56pm

I know exactly how members of parliament are elected. I also know of other electoral systems that would more fairly represent the views of a wider range of views of Australians. Our current system is the basis of the domination by the two major parties and of course you don't want it changed because you are happy with the pattern of representation.I note the royal "we" in your reply, this suggests a sense of entitlement. You re one person as am I each of us should have a vote of equal value. At present we do not.

reaver:

08 Sep 2013 9:46:35pm

We are the Australian national electorate, Jerry. There are more than 13 million of us. In order to change the way that MPs are elected a referendum would have to be held in order to change Part III of the Constitution. In order for such a referendum to be successful you would have to convince over six and a half million of us that a change is needed. No such referendum would be successful if your only argument for it is that we, the voters, currently won't vote for the candidates you want elected.Currently you and I do have votes of equal value as does every other Australian citizen. There's just far more voters with votes of equal value who vote for the major parties than who don't.

Paul:

08 Sep 2013 12:00:23pm

We will see the true Tony Abbott and the true LNP not the sanitized version presented to the media over the last three years. The hard right in the LNP will feel vindicated and victorious and won't be giving up an opportunity to change things drastically in this country to benefit the rich. There will be a lot of people in 12 months time who will be regretful of their decision to get rid of the ALP. That said there should be a lot of senior ALP figures who should hang their head in shame for their self indulgent and vindictive behavior.

greenspider:

08 Sep 2013 1:55:38pm

How long before TAbbott is recorded saying that some national leader or other has a "sh*t eating grin" a la Sep 11 2009, when he referred to JGillard?

And how long before we wind up in another war? When was it that a conservative prime minister DIDN'T get us into a war? I'm not sure Malcolm Fraser got us into a war, but my recollection is that he was the minister responsible for introduction national service during the Viet Nam war.

I wonder what our present budget bottom line would be if Australia hadn't been thrust into Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc, courtesy of the Coalition?

Ghost of Christmas Present:

Seano:

08 Sep 2013 12:01:11pm

"'waste' he's employed most recently in announcing a shift in funding from the social sciences."

Much of the 'social' sciences are waste., defecated by fools who misunderstood the mechanisms of their own expensive taxpayer-funded toys, such as running studies on computers to 10ms precison, when standard Intel clock chips prior to 2005 couldn't do 10ms precision.

The data is flawed. The money is wasted. The people are wronged. Justice is smothered with academic hubris.Thanks for opening on Sunday.

Gr8Ape:

08 Sep 2013 2:20:17pm

I'm a member of the human race that just happens to live in Australia. As such the contribution that Australia has made to my identity is a small chapter down the back. Menzies, Howard and Hawke barely rate a mention.

Arrbee:

08 Sep 2013 12:39:27pm

I wish them success, but have grave concerns for the ability of Abbott and his team to manage the pressing issues, particularly the UN, Indonesia's displeasure with the boats debacle and the economy. I guess time will tell, but their competence and trust is contingent on this point for me.

Sarah C:

08 Sep 2013 12:45:59pm

Did you know that Labor won the election?!! I gauged that by the jubilation of Rudd supporters during his speech.

What, one earth, was the jubilation about?!! It looked so embarrassing. Do we intend to continue to be delusional as we have during the last four years, claiming that Abbott was unelectable?! A 34% of the primary votes is an absolute drabbing!!! What standards are acceptable these days? Losing the government by 35 seat majority is something to be jubilant about. I would like to know how many slabs of beer was consumed by the jubilant crowd before they became that jubilant.

Will Kevin Rudd ever accept any responsibility for the damage he has done to the Labor Party?!!!

harry:

08 Sep 2013 1:57:03pm

The starkest difference between the two camps were the supporters, Labor and Rudd seemed to be dominated by kids who wouldn't have a clue about the world. They think they can legislate to fix every problem, and pull money out of the air or other people's pockets. Their pathetic booing of the PM-elect and their parochial barracking for any mention of QLD just made me cringe. I have to admit that during the Rudd soliloquy I was left thinking, "does he ever shut up".

The reason Rudd spent so time campaigning in Primary Schools was that he was hoping to get lucky and meet the next Labor Prime Minister there.

RoxyR:

08 Sep 2013 2:18:00pm

Sarah C,

Your post made me think what was good about vlast night's TV coverage of the election rusults.

Good;Julia Gillard's twitters on the results - real class, applies also to the way she kept right out of election bunfight.Ruddd's initial comments re Howard's handover and how he will handle the handover to AbbottABC coverage - Kerri Kerri managed to keep his disappointment at the result under control. The highlight though was Stepen Smith & Arthur Sinodinus who managed to make insightful comments without abusing each other.Bowen retaining his seat, he's the sort of member the ALP will need.

Bad;Channel 9 coverage, usual rubbish with everyone arguing and talking over each other.Rudd taking twice as long as Abbott with his speech and mentioning everyone but his dog and the caretaker - but failing to mention Julia Gillard at all.Rudd with about 50% of his speech all about "I" the Messiah.Rudd who finished it off with a "selfie" of himself sent to the TV station

Lucyb:

08 Sep 2013 3:03:07pm

Is the result of the election not to your liking Sarah? Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought from other comments that you were a Coalition supporter. If so can you please be gracious in victory and suspend the negative comments? Mr Rudd and his supporters were entitled to feel they had done their best and fought to the end no matter the outcome. That they had lost the election was not denied and good wishes were given to the Coalition. They were simply acknowledging a fight well fought.It is now time to move on.

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 12:52:37pm

Worried about a funding cut? Expecting those who produce a product that Australia and/or the world wants to pay for you?

You are so quick to attack a new government even before it has sat in parliament for one day. Interesting the ABC never tried this when Gillard or Rudd where elected. Interesting the ABC did not have one positive coalition article in the day before the election. That may be against the charter of bias, but considering bias is perspective, there is nothing breached.

Times are tough and debt is rising. There needs to be a justification for any expenditure. I do not believe knowledge for knowledges sake is important. I hope there are some university cuts because Australia should not be funding research articles that go nowhere. I know they arnt pulled out of the arse, but they might as well be if it is never read, let alone agreed with or far mar importantly, provide a new perspective to the individual that just read it.

Miowarra:

OntheRun:

08 Sep 2013 3:19:13pm

Just as good as the current ALP/Greens agenda. Having top boradcasters will family relations to ALP candidates questioning the then opposition leader, having Mungo who is an ALP die hard with constant column space, choosing poems that support Green ideology only, choosing academics that only or primarily criticise the coalition and so much more demonstrates continued bias right now.

And all on tax payer funds. The ABC's public funding should be scrapped.

peter chen:

Anne T:

08 Sep 2013 1:10:03pm

Peter (or Dr Chen), thanks for this article but I am curious as to why it has come out after the election.

For anyone who does not read the Murdoch tabloids or listen to 2GB, all that you have said was quite obvious over the past five weeks of the campaign, not to mention the past three years, so I am puzzled as to why this is only being discussed now.

I hope you will continue to follow these themes as this government moves into action.

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 2:24:32pm

OIC, well it depends if the ABC ask me to write more stuff after the election. Like a vampire ("of public money" according to Murdoch today; http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/murdoch-hits-out-at-public-servants-20130908-2tdnq.html) I can only come in when invited, else I loose all my power.

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 1:53:41pm

No, there are far more taxpayers than welfare receipients. Unless, however, you count middle-class welfare (including, but not limited to the maternity leave scheme and "high end" arts funding).Re your concerns about Debt and Collapse: man, you need to really turn that frown upside down. Less Walking Dead and more Masterchef.

Heretic:

09 Sep 2013 3:58:10pm

Graham H and Peter Chen:

Here are some facts on social spending (and taxation) in this country"

"The most recent data on social spending in OECD countries shows that in 2007 .... Australia spent 16 per cent of GDP on cash benefits (including pensions and unemployment payments, healthcare and community services) compared to an OECD average of just over 19 per cent.

We actually spent a little less than the United States and Japan, and the only countries that spent substantially less than we did were lower-income countries like Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Korea.

In most rich countries, the welfare state is the largest single component of public spending and therefore the main determinant of how much tax income needs to be collected. About half of all the taxes collected in Australia are directed to social spending, but because we spend less than average we also have lower taxes than average. With taxes at about 27 per cent of GDP in 2008 compared to an OECD average of close to 35 per cent, Australia is the sixth lowest-taxing country in the OECD."

Jason:

08 Sep 2013 1:45:04pm

This is not a victory, or a defeat for that matter, to be proud of. I had a look at the AEC tallys this morning for just the House of Reps: Around 23% of eligible voters either voted early or didn't vote at all. Of those that did vote on election day, nearly 6% voted informally and around 22% voted "none of the above" in relation to the two main political groups, which is staggering considering that the Green vote almost halved this election.

Without doing any detailed analysis, you can see that there is a large group of Australian citizens, of which I am one, disenchanted and disengaged with our political system. The next two or three Governments, regarless of their political colour, has a lot of work to do to restore faith in the political process and democracy in general.

Nicholas Scrooge:

08 Sep 2013 10:14:39pm

Jason,

As I was cueing to vote, standing in the corridor of the local hall, I was inspired by school kids writings on pin-up boards to give an off the cuff rendition of Richard Pryor's "Brewster's Millions", that 1986 film where Brewster devised a protest election campaign urging a vote for "None of the Above." So, you are now telling me that coincidently a fifth of the voters wrote "none of the above" on their ballot papers? What is the point of participating if the two parties can only nominate such hacks and have such policies that left a fifth in the cold.

Alison Cann:

08 Sep 2013 2:06:04pm

Peter,Tony Abbott and the Liberals did nothing, heard nothing and said nothing.Therefore they won quite easily.On the other hand the other mob, Labor said they were going to fight, fight and fight for their political life.

peter chen:

Pollyanna:

08 Sep 2013 2:09:09pm

Spenda: Women have always worked; and women usually outlive their husbands by at least twenty years. So women need to work at least part time to give their children a work ethic - a bit scarce among todays young, and for women to provide for their own old age, and maybe even to provide for sick elderly husbands. Cheers!

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 1:50:40pm

Yes, but its interesting that the CSIRO was established as a response to the Ivory Tower of the academy: it was aimed to do much more applied research. Just goes to show, scientists just can't stop theorising!

Simon says:

08 Sep 2013 2:15:00pm

Labor troubles will continue for as long as the source of Labor's bitter division - Kevin Rudd - allowed to continue his treacherous work.

Kevin Rudd is still hoping that, eventually, at some later stage, Labor MPs will once again have to call upon him to lead them to 'new victory'. The guy is an absolute psychopath. Last night, after the worst Labor primary vote ever, Rudd actually claimed some sort of victory. How delusional this egocentric maniac really can be?

For as long as Rudd is a member of Labor caucus, he will continue to undermine any leader Labor elects, in order to prove to everyone the he, and only he, can lead Labor to salvation.

Labor will be stuck in the past, bitterly divided, for as long as they don't get rid of Rudd. Permanently. His expulsion from the Labor Party is the only way forward for Labor.

peter chen:

DAMO:

08 Sep 2013 4:14:46pm

What i think we really need is a true third force in politics.One that realizes that business, workers and social responsibility are of equal value.Without business there can be no workforce.Without a workforce business cant exist. and without social responsibility then many who have more potential than their circumstances dictate will never see that full potential realized,either as members of the workforce or new business owners.

Sebastian Lionheart:

08 Sep 2013 4:45:03pm

Peter, What do you expect from Abbott's government? Any claim they make rarely require defense, and are invoked to rationalize anything from lowering taxes on the wealthy (mining) and scrapping environmental regulations (carbon tax) to dismantling public education and social programs.

At their most eloquent, they sound as if they are doing hard working Australians, the environment, and everybody else a tremendous service as they enact polices on the behalf of the wealthy few.

I suggest we should question the legitimacy of Abbott's government.

I see it as an illegal government because it announced the bulk of its policies after the blackout. Which means they could not be argued, publicly, in the time left? This gambit, I believe, was not only illegitimate but illegal, and this could certainly be argued before the High Court if need be.

Jimmy D:

08 Sep 2013 7:02:23pm

In that case you need to write to your local MP telling how you feel and encourage a move to legislation making it law that future governments release their costings about 7-14 days before election time.

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 8:26:31am

I see that you've been to Bob Ellis's blog 'Table Talk: Bob Ellis on Film and Theatre', Sebastian. I can, of course, tell this as you've copied the content from the post "Lines for Albo (52)" that Ellis wrote on his blog yesterday morning. He wrote "It is illegitimate and illegal because it announced the bulk of its policies after the blackout. Which means they could not be argued, publicly, in the time left. This tactic, I believe, was not only illegitimate but illegal, and this will be argued before the High Court if need be." All you did was to modify the wording slightly so that it wasn't a direct cut and paste job.The fact is that the Abbott government is legally legitimate whether you or Ellis likes it or not. There is no common law, legislative or constitutional requirement that a political party or candidate release their policies at any specific time or even that they have to release their policies at all. The High Court isn't going to entertain this kind of nuisance case nor is it going to give you a do-over election just because you don't like the result of this one.

mike:

09 Sep 2013 1:27:26pm

Then you must consider the governments elected in 2007 and 2010 illegitimate too, given that they released their costings on the night before the election. Did you complain then? Somehow I suspect not.

mike:

08 Sep 2013 5:04:33pm

One of the "anti-Islamic speakers" that Bernardi "shepherded around the country" was a member of the Dutch Parliament; would Peter Chen ban criticism of Islam in this country? Perhaps the recent experience of European countries with large Muslim immigrant populations is instructive.

Pun:

mike, which major Australian party is being defended, if any, by your statement that Geert Wilders was a Dutch MP?

Wilders was denounced by Colin Barnett of WA and by Tony Abbott for his anti-Muslim immigration message, criticised by Abbott for trying to co-opt Australia's Anzac tradition.

If any MP, of any parliament, goes on an extra-mural speaking tour, that is, speaking for themselves and speaking outside the walls of the institution or body they are members of, then their views are their own, not their parliament's.

Pun:

09 Sep 2013 1:55:18pm

And in spite of Abbott's repudiation of Geert Wilders at the time, Abbott has no problem with appealing to the same view of our history as not sufficiently about "our heritage" when commenting on the teaching of history last week.

mike:

09 Sep 2013 4:12:03pm

I suspect that their view is, as they have stated repeatedly, that freedom of speech is (or should be) a fundamental right in Australia - but that does not stop them from exercising their freedom to criticise others' views themselves.

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 1:49:00pm

Possibly yes, just as we might restrict a rabidly anti-Israeli member of the Iranian parliament from visiting Australia if we were to see this as counter to the national interest. Oddly enough we don't let Duch voters decide our immigration and entry policy, Duh!

John:

09 Sep 2013 5:36:02pm

Dr Chen, you are merely making yourself look even more foolish and you are making your argument less tenable.

A "rabidly anti-Israeli member of the Iranian Parliament" should be at liberty to state his views. So should the anti-Islamists, as you discussed earlier. So should the holocaust deniers, like Irving. So should the flat-earthers, the Gaians, the Shakers, the Naked Jains and everyone else.

I happen to think that they're all nuts, or deranged in one way or another. But the very last thing I would want to see is their right to free speech stifled by other extremists. In the same way, I would defend your right to say these crackpot things in an open forum such as this.

mike:

deceptionplanet:

08 Sep 2013 6:01:10pm

Tony Abbot being elected is proof that 40% of the public is ignorant when the Murdocracy of Rupert and associated media has convinced them to vote for this puppet.

What has happened to unbiased media in this country all we have had for the past 3 years is blue murdor. I have never witnessed in my entire life a mass bashing from the media on an incumbent government which really got into gear when Kevin Rudd wanted the big miners to pay their fair share.

RoxyR:

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 1:46:51pm

This is a good example of first and third person effect thinking about the media: that the media has stronger effects on others than I. There is an assumption that readers of the "quality" media are discriminating and the "tabloids" not descriminating, which is an argument as old as history.

TheNewBoilerMakerBill:

08 Sep 2013 7:08:12pm

2x There are a lot of things that should be on the "ideological" agenda but up there right near the top should be the reform of the ABC!

It's clear and overt bias towards the Labor/Green ideology is a not only a disgrace for a taxpayer funded media group but it is an abomination for democracy because of the essential role the public media plays in a democracy.

The tax payer funded public media should be the ONE place the public can go for objective unbiased political information to help us decide who to cast out precious vote for. Instead it acts as little more than a PR arm of the ALP/Greens!

Pun:

Talking about the ABC proper or just us commentators who reply to opinions? The two not to be confused, the former a national service, the latter opinion expressed by your fellow compatriots.

Unless you, like Murdoch, are puporting to have privileged insight into the minds of all Australians, not just expressing your own view, by claiming to know what "the public" is "sick of"?

Which cuts? is still the question Abbott has not answered and does not necessarily have a madate to implement if e is really going to govern for all Australians. Are the cuts going to include cutting the PPL because, predictably, business is now beginning to spruik the argument against the cost of the PPL, perhaps to argue that they want more than the promised amount of company tax reduction?

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 1:45:01pm

Given the investigations undertaken into this under the Howard Government into the ABC bias question your assertion seems false. What should be on the agenda is a postive program for media diversification, however. This is, needless to say, unlikely.

Polysemantic Pete:

08 Sep 2013 7:49:59pm

One interesting thing about last night's election results was seeing such a high number of the independents and micro-parties get such a high primary vote. One in five people didn't vote Labor, Liberal or National as first choice. The Conservatives and the ALP better wake up that the days of getting enough numbers for a rubber-stamp Senate are gone for now, ever since we gave Howard and Co. too much power almost a decade ago. Tony Abbott is going to find it hard to do all he wants to, unless he makes deals with a lot of people, something he swore he won't do. He can take us back to the polls with a double dissolution election, but he may find he still doesn't get the Senate he wants. What is he going to do then, expect us to vote a third, forth or fifth time until us naughty voters finally learn how to fill out our ballot slips in a way Tony finds agreeable?

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 1:43:23pm

If, as is being discussed today, there are reforms to the Senate, this might change: though in what direction is unclear. If the number of party members goes up, some of the micro parties and smaller social movement parties would definately disappear. If non-compulsory preferential voting is introduced, there will be a more interesting time as more voters vote below the line in the Senate. How many will do so will be interesting to see.

Shaun:

08 Sep 2013 8:11:29pm

I cant understand why the Labor Party does not believe it has lost. And when pushed on the issue people like Penny Wong believe it was only infighting that caused the lost. You were flogged, hard, by the electorate because your whole policy platform was opposed to what the electorate wanted and you were incapable of running this nation. You play to a base that has not existed for years and you lean to hard to a left that has collapsed for you and the Greens ... wake up fools or languish for another decade or two.

bluedog:

08 Sep 2013 9:38:52pm

Fascinating post by Peter Chen. We can presumably expect many more in the same vein as Mr Chen singlehandedly holds the Abbott government to account for abandoning the Left's agenda, which Tony Abbott has been elected to do. Of course, nobody in government will take the slightest notice of what Peter Chen says, other than to note with satisfaction his further frustration and annoyance.

How long before the ABC/Peter Chen publishes a ritual assault on the Coalition for its refusal to endorse SSM? Rudd's decision to seek a mandate for SSM within the ALP's election manifesto has backfired spectacularly. Hopefully the utter rejection of SSM by the Australian electorate means that this socially regressive policy will now join the inevitable republic in the trash can, permanently.

How can Peter Chen cope with the anguish of living among such an unworthy and shamefully unprogressive people as the Australian electorate? My own respect for the Australian people has soared. The election result is a tribute to the sound instincts of the nation. Outside the metropolitan cluster it's a very different world.

peter chen:

09 Sep 2013 2:32:22pm

As 89% of its population living in urban areas in Australia, it seems you're in the minory. Sorry to let you know that I, the "fascinating" Peter Chen represent the center of Australian popular opinion. Yay me!

Ray:

08 Sep 2013 10:06:43pm

Much of Tony Abbott's support seems to be because of his strong stance that the carbon tax as increased the cost to consumers of just about everything we buy or use. I get a reminder each time my Origin electricity bill arrives. In red it states "NSW Govt estimates that the Federal carbon tax and green energy schemes add about $332 a year to a typical 6.5MWh household bill - www.ipart.nsw.gov.au". My experience is that most businesses quickly put up prices to cover an expense, like a carbon tax, but rarely drop their prices when a tax is removed. The consumer continues to pay the higher price and the business pockets the extra profit.

Assuming the legislation to remove the carbon tax makes it through the senate what structures do you think would be necessary to ensure prices drop to pre carbon tax level?

Arturo:

08 Sep 2013 10:06:45pm

The libs and their minority partners can pant and moan about mandates all they want. Labor's mandate extends only to scrutinizing the record of the government and then systematically and ruthlessly obliterating it; to exposing the liberal's waste, lies and betrayal of trust; to highlight the liberal'smismanagement of the budget; to destroy the liberal's ability to govern in comfort; to asphyxiate ministers offices with multiple FOI requests; and to bludgeon home the lack of direction and hopelessness of the the liberal decision making process. Anyone who thinks the ALP owes the liberals anything more than 3 years of ferocious, relentless and poisonous negativity is living in a fantasy.

reaver:

09 Sep 2013 8:07:04am

And what does Labor owe to the Austtralian people, Arturo? Your post sums up why Labor lost the election. People will be arguing over whether Labor lost the election due to their internal instability or due to the carbon tax or to due to the rising debt or to their relationship with the Greens and independents or to the NSW corruption problem or to a number of other reasons. While significant these are symptoms more than they are causes. The ultimate cause of all of Labor's problems and subsequent electoral defeat is that for six years Labor told and showed the electorate that their highest priority was Labor and that their only loyalty was to themselves.

peter chen:

graazt:

09 Sep 2013 4:16:52pm

"the political logic of our time says to shy away from expansive announcements and 'vision' speeches, ending the Keynesian-like relationship between strong economic growth and flights of political imagination."

That's the opposite of Keynesian economics. Strong economic growth is supposed to be tempered with contractionary fiscal policy. And vice-versa.

Allan:

Heretic:

09 Sep 2013 6:20:58pm

Peter Chen is right in suggesting that the new Abbott government's policies will be tainted with the ultra-conservative and, at times, misogynist ideology we've heard plenty about over the past 12 months or so. I just don't buy it - TA wanting to support women in juggling the double burden of full-time work and raising children. It's just so not Tony (nor Julie Bishop),

As Joshua Gans wrote on ABC Drum Opinion in May this year, Abbott's paid maternity leave scheme "blasts the household bargain as to who stays home with the baby back to the 1950s. All of the incentive is for women to take six months off to get the advantage of the scheme. Employers will know this and so when they are evaluating equally qualified men and women for good jobs, it isn't hard to see that they will have more reason to choose the man."

I suspect this is the intended outcome; women, especially those in better paid positions, ceding their jobs to men and then all will be well at the conservative home front.

Gans goes on to suggest how the Australian macho workplace culture could be changed: A tax rebate on employees' wages for businesses who have employees taking paid parental leave, provided they're successfully brought back to the workplace. This would reduce the costs for the business in question, instead of increasing costs under the proposed Abbott scheme.

Further, this would ensure that employees (men or women) taking parental leave would have a job to come back to.

thook:

09 Sep 2013 6:23:59pm

I dispute your assertion that the new Liberal government will 're-write' history to downgrade the achievements of Labor governments. It is a matter of re-dressing the balance. We have to move away from a complete left wing ('black armband') bias in our school system, especially in history. Our conservative ancestors have done some good things too, and our children should recognise and appreciate that.

JohnD:

09 Sep 2013 6:33:38pm

Come on fellows wake up.

Liberal and Labor are the same 2 headed donkey they always were. They are the "Gobalist" party and are supported by the ABC and SBS who make sure the smaller parties get no air time. Only nationalists who put the people and nation before the international banks and corporations can defeat these global imperialists. Thats why they hate Nationalists so much. Think about it for once.